Talk:Humanzee

Vertical Human Genes

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)

I have confirmed by personal communication with Oliver's caregiver's at Primarily Primates that not only is he NOT dead, he is very much alive and can be seen in a photo in their latest newsletter (which was just mailed out), enjoying a nice slice of fresh watermelon during a watermelon party for the chimps in their care. Go here to see a link of two of their other chimps at the same party: Watermelon party at Primarily Primates! Oliver is alive and as well as an arthritic and elderly chimp can be. I cannot add Original research, which is what my phone conversation would be, to the article but I will work on getting a link in the article on Oliver showing him with his watermelon.LiPollis (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speculation

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)

roject but that has been absored into ours as a sub-project. I won't add the banner back just yet but will bring this to the attention of our project. Please reconsider your opinion of our project. Our members are not weirdos or "true-believers" with an agenda. We merely have an interest in a variety of topics, this one among them. You will see from the article's history that I have been a contributor. Lisapollison 03:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The banners should be discussed and a consensus reached before they are just removed. That seems to be a decision that more than one editor should make. I'm pretty sure a lot of editors feel that the Cryptozoology banner, at least, belongs here. If no one objects to removing the banners after a period of time, then remove them. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:38, 9 February 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)

So far we've got two for the banners, one against. Whatever the outcome, I'm willing to go with the consensus. Feb. 16 sounds like a good date. Maybe no one else cares : ) Usually the discussion is before. Did I miss where removing the banners was discussed? --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What was missing was the discussion before the inclusion. Badbilltucker put them in on 19/1/2007, and I took them out on 21/1/2007. Total duration 27 hours, 20 minutes. No discussion beforehand, and it was his first and last contribution to the article. I watch this article pretty closely because it attracts a lot of ill-thought changes. That was just another one.

Kww 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I can also see how that might be irritating as well. I would just give it the week and if no one has any strong objections, go ahead and remove it. Then if it comes back in the future, you can point to this thread and say, "already discussed". I really do feel that the article can benefit from the group keeping tabs on it. Believe it or not, the paranormal group is a well-balanced group of Wikizens and we do a good job of policing articles for neutrality and would probably help, not hurt, in keeping the riff-raft out. Many of us are pro-paranormal but keep a neutral tone. Some of us are skeptics and debunkers and contribute as well to keep articles from getting out of hand. I'd like to see the tags stay, but I won't feel too bad if they don't. Thanks for giving it a few days. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be detrimental for this page to be watched after by a good project like Wikiproject Paranormal. As said above, just because they have "paranormal" in their title doesn't mean they are all true believers of the paranormal. The only con I can see would be that it could potentially legitimize clogging the article with additional paranormal or anti-paranormal material into the article by true believers or debunkers. I don't think that will necessarily be the case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The case for paranormal

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)

The case against paranormal

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)

Except for the references to actual novels, the science fiction section isn't really science fiction from what I read. It sounds more like a bunch of WP:OR. Most of it needs to be removed at some point and the remaining can be integrated into the Pop Culture section. I don't know who Arislan is, but the Wikipedia policies allow for cutting that section except for the referenced facts (the mentions of the novels). --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who "Arislan" is in real life, but if you look through the revision history, you will see that I created the "science fiction" section just to keep him from reverting his changes in. I could live without lawnmowing slave races, myself.Kww 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So could I. Lawnmowing robots... still waiting on those.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Science Fiction section really does drag this article down, doesn't it? How agressively does it get added back when edited out? Do you think if we created an article called Feasability of ape-human hybrids we could move the stuff over there? It would allow Arislan to speculate away and put the focus here back on the real science and the rumors within science about alleged humanzees. Just a thought. This article would be so much better without that material. The article on Feasability of ape-human hybrids could include a list of all the science fiction novels that include hybrids as part of the plot such as Michael Bishop's Ancient of Days and Roger MacBride Allen's Orphan of Creation.Lisapollison 09:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd delete it happily enough. I don't think there is anything in it worth saving that couldn't just be added as a novel summary in the "Pop Culture" section. When I get to it, I'm going to write a master article on ape hybridization that covers the ones that have occurred naturally, those that have occurred in forced environments like zoos, and those that have been verified to be nearly impossible because of fertilization and viability barriers. Any article on "feasibility of ape-human hybrids" should be a subset of that one, not speculation on who should mow the lawn. Arislan was pretty adamant about keeping the material, but I was a voice in the wilderness trying to keep the article sanitary. If those of you that stick banners all over the page show up the next time it comes back in, I think we could keep it out.Kww 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead, moved portions of "Science Fiction" into "Popular Culture", and cleaned the rest out. Hopefully, the taint of "Original Research" is gone. Screwed up the change description, though (hit <enter> when I was going for <">), so if there is a way to patch up the change history I'd appreciate it.Kww 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read through it all, but it looks much better. If the other sections aren't opinioned and are sourced, maybe the OR tag can come off (again, this opinion is without actually reading it). --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 04:40, 14 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)

cryptozoology

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)

Wow. If you know of a real Humanzee, by all means cite your source. You'll note that in the article there have been many rumors of Humazees but no evidence that any experiements have resulted in live births. It remains a proposed animal and therefore a cryptid. By the way, newer topics should be added to the bottom of the talk page as a general convention. It just helps folks scanning the page find them more easily and makes thing easier when a talk page gets archived.Lisapollison 04:05, 9 February 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)

Kww , if you take the time to learn more about CryptoZoology, you'd learn that it is far more than the study of lake monsters or legendary monsters. Take a look at the main article and you will see that a number of animals once considered cryptids have seince been documented - animals such as the Okapi, the Giant Squid, the mountain gorilla, and more. You are a recently arrived editor or at least a recently registered editor. As such, I would suggest restraint when it comes to claiming guardianship over topics you feel strongly about. This article has been the subject of a lot of vandalism of the most childish type (people blanking sections and adding "Your momma has hairy arms" type of of vandalism). Putting this article under a well-established project helps ensure that such vandalism will be kept in check. Finally, this page is to discuss the article and not a forum for you to debate the legitimacy of a wki project, or your personal opinions of Cryptozoology or the paranormal in general. I am going to tag this article appropriately to remind folks to talk about the arrticle alone.Lisapollison 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So where do you draw the line between "talking about the legitimacy of a project" and talking about whether an article legitimately falls within the scope of a project?Kww 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The page falls under the scope of Wikiproject Paranormal (which I myself have claimed on its own talk page to be somewhat misnamed to begin with) due to the subject in question not yet universally recognized by mainstream science (which is admittedly a purely subjective term). This lack of recognition (thus far...there is always hope, though...) is the fundamental basis of cryptozoology, which was at least recently a sub-project of WPP (if now changed, I had't yet been informed), as the word literally means the Study of Unknown Animals; as soon as they are no longer unknown, Wikiproject Paranormal would be inclined to withdraw, and hand them (or in this case this page) over to Zoology alone, and/or similar disciplines. Just because something is more believable to some people than other things (and in the cases of the maritime reptilian creatures of the Loch, Lake Champlain and elsewhere, I take umbrage in that they are highly studied and believable) doesn't mean either is any less cryptozoological. --Chr.K. 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

etymology references

Etymologists from the Slater/Ralley/Stear school of thought

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)

syntax problem with references

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)

This article needs a re-think

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)

It's just a Wikipedia naming convention. You aren't logged in to a user account, therefore you are an anonymous editor. Nothing more is meant by it and announcing your name via anonymous edit doesn't change much. Why not sign up an account? Bryan 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kevin (if that's your real name...still better than Mr. 200.6.149.27), I don't get it. If you are such a stickler for editing Wikipedia, how come you don't even have an account here? It is hard to take anonymous contributions seriously. I strongly suggest you get an account. Anyway, I think your restructuring needs work. But I think the whole of the problem is that the entire article is needing work. I'll try and contribute some to editing what's already there instead of adding more sections. I've been fascinated by humanzees since I was a child. My turn to be "childish"...if I had the resources I would certainly do research into humanzee production. ;-) Cheaper than robots and more apt, and perfect for cheap labour. --Arislan 10:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Humanzee

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)

I agree, also someone should atleast make mention of Il'ya Ivanov http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=287 Suppafly 21:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. I've only heard of the humanzee name until reading this. It was a redirect from humanzee anyway. Komlon 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. If no-one disagrees within a few days I'll move the page. --Grace 23:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this proposal is so old and has yet to receive any objections, I've moved it as requested. The old discussion associated with Humanzee can be found at the archive now. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:54, 31 July 2006 (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 information on the liger page has since been update. BTW, according to tigon, female tigons are fertile as well so it appears the female lion-tiger hybrids are often fertile but not the males... Nil Einne 13:30, 12 August 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.

Maimo

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.

Divergence

"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.

Cite sources?

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)

Chromosomal Polymorphism

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)

Might be better to grab a few of the better refs from that article and import them here, that way this article can stand alone. Bryan 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing?

At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy. In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.

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)

Deleted Passages

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 removed it because it was unsourced, and didn't seem particularly relavant, as no humanzee was supposed to have been created. If you want to add it back in, cite a source for the claim.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is from the book "Mengele: The Complete Story" by Gerald L. Posner. The relevance is that many people were not told that Mengele was "just kidding" and some still believe he created humanzees. He didn't. Arislan 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrific. I've added the ref into the article. You don't happen to have a page number, do you?--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference. I don't have a page number at hand. Excellent book, though, so I might check it out again someday.Arislan 00:02, 25 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)

Hey, anonymous, are you aware that if you type "human-ape hybrid" in the search box will redirect here? Do you know WHY that is? Well I'll tell you, it's because the word humanzee is POPULARLY used for any human ape hybrid. I imagine english is NOT your native language, so you probably don't know this, but a lot of people popularly call chimps monkeys. They are not monkeys, they are apes, you see, monkeys have tails. This is wrong and the ONLY way to fix this is to change the article's name. Now, I'm not going to do that so I explained that confusion to others. Oh, and about that silliness regarding the set of passages: NO ONE knows what the temperament any hybrid would be, that is correct. Then WHY you want to remove the line that SUPPORTS that statement? You removed the thing about it being impossible to gauge a humanzee's temperament because none have ever been studied! And you better sign your changes properly and if deleting someone else's text, use the talk page to talk about it or, since you have no username, people will think you are an anonymous vandal out to randomly blank out sections. --Arislan 16:31, 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 to humans

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.

I disagree. While it is true that they shared a common ancestor with each other before humans, it is possible that one of the two species (Bonobos perhaps?) is genetically closer to their ancestor than the other is, thus making them closer to humans than the other. - 23:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A closer genetic match is possible, but that is not what is implied by "more closely related", which suggests a closer familial link (i.e. that the bonobos are closer cousins to us than is the common chimpanzee, which as already explained cannot be true). These issues are explained very well in Richard Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale, a book I strongly recommend.

Wishful thinking has a lot to do with claims like this. It's nice to think that we are closer to the peaceful, loving bonobo than the warmongering common chimp, but it isn't necessarily so. 217.155.20.163 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE THIS SECTION!

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)

I agree. You should remove it. - 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.247.1 (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)

Now now, they're's no call for that. Just add it back in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:01, 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 have now stricken it. - 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name or IP (talk • contribs) date.

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.

Section on laborers?--Arislan 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous? Yes! That unfortunately doesn't make it false. Part of the Goal of the soviet experiments was to create a docile strong labor force. One would not do experiments like that "Just for the hell of it" 130.71.96.19 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

removal of Washington Post's comment

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)

I have seen that argument that "humans used to breed with chimps" used by white supremacists in their rhetoric. They tried to say that because whites left the region where apes lived, the interbreeding stopped much sooner, therefore implying that blacks were "less evolved". So I agree with deleting the Washington Post passage, lest wikipedia starts being used as proof by the lunatic fringe.--Arislan 17:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

On the "Possible candidates for breeding with humans" section

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)

It seems ridiculous to me, pure speculation. I say delete it. Kokiri kid 13:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In which way is it speculation? The section describes each of the great apes' characteristics and juxtaposes that to the humanzee bred from that particular species. If you had bothered to go to each of the articles about chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans, you would have seen that those attributes are quite correct. --Arislan 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why anybody has a problem with this section. Every time I come to the Talk page I find someone else that has a problem with it. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!. The next person to post something about a problem with it better have a justifiable reason (by the way that's not meant as a threat or an insult). I see nothing unscientific about it. - 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.105.88 (talk • contribs)

I removed the unreferenced tag. There is a reference in most paragraphs of the section. --Arislan 01:49, 29 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)

"A humanzee bred from orangutans who retained these characteristics might not be cooperative for labour purposes, and a problem around human females." is not a stretch. It's completely logical that a being who has those characteristics of the orangutans would be hard to aclimatise to daily work around humans. The section is discussing how these humanzees could be expected to react, while giving them the leeway that their human side is the unknown variable which can alter everything. How they would do in the army is very relevant, after all, the experiments that were officially funded in that direction by the Soviet government were precisely for that purpose. Or you think they wanted humanzees to play soccer? (That would be hard to do if they had hands for feet, can't imagine one in Manchester United.) And by the way, "humanzee" is popularly used as a word for any great ape/human hybrid. In fact, type human-ape hybrid and it will redirect to Humanzee. And finally, saying that "the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." is not original research, it is pure logic.--Arislan 17:54, 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)

Etymology

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)

Can common chimpanzees and bonobos interbreed?

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)

Original research

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)

Will you provide concrete pointers to the Original Research items? I'll address any of them that are outside of the "Science Fiction" section.

Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned out the block of speculation. I'll clean out the "OR" tag in a week unless someone points out something that I missed.Kww 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering - must have missed the update (I have 200 pages on my watchlist). Some obvious OR:

• Feasibility section: the first 5 paragraphs (up to, and including, the one about horses) - this is inference, a form of OR.
• Same section: the paragraph beginning "one possible way" (total OR giveaway!)
• Same section, final paragraph: the phrase This doesn't make it entirely impossible and Still, the creation of humanzees might run into difficulties other than purely scientific ones.
• The entire Possible means and Possible candidates sections.

Those are the obvious offenders; there might be some I've missed. Happy removing! Totnesmartin 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned out large chunks. Having difficulty with the "feasibility" section (and I admit, it may be author's pride). There is valuable information there, and I tried hard to not make an inference from it. I tried to describe the genetic obstacles (and provided references), and documented cases where similar obstacles didn't prevent fertility (and provided references). I did not state that chimpanzee-human hybrids would be possible because of the similarities, or impossible because of the differences. Is there a way to salvage the section? (For the record, I am of the opinion that we are probably not interfertile ... I'm sure that this form of bestiality has been tried, and, if unions were possible, there would be evidence of same).Kww 01:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're reluctant to delete your own work (and who wouldn't be) then there are two alternatives: get someone to do it for you (not much better really) or find some sources for the information. As you are obviously intelligent, and interested in the subject, perhaps you could find references to this material in scientific articles, papers etc. this is the best way, it would really beef up the article. Totnesmartin 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Page name

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)

Extra material

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)

Nothing new in it, and you were right: direct cut-and-paste of other websites.Kww 13:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)

When

A new set of chimps would not arrive at Sukhumi until the summer of 1930.

This is ambiguous. More precise wording is needed. --B.d.mills 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah RETARDED, the wonderful word (Appropriate changes made - no longer in the text as of 8/26/08)

"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)

Regardless of the word's derogatory use, it does have a specific meaning that should be used when it is accurate. What would you rather have used? 83.226.251.29 11:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "with an intellectual disability"?--Sonjaaa 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Or even more PC "A mentally unique child" 130.71.96.19 05:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Or we could even say "spastic." 24.224.229.101 (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How about "was most likely a child with developmental disabilities" - that covers the whole gamut of what may have been wrong without being pejorative or too specific. It's also sufficiently descriptive to get the point across.LiPollis (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, reading the date on a comment and comparing it to the present article is within my range of mental capabilities. This language was changed long ago.Kww (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (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)

Edward Coke's report of a human-ape hybrid

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)

common chimp bias

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)

Ivanov section

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)

Genetic Evidence

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 think the commenter is trying to make a "biblical" claim. Only a religious nut would claim there is "no evidence at all that humans and apes are related"; the evidence is, in fact, rather overwhelming. The comment "Humans and apes were from the beginning two separate lines" is pretty clearly taken from a creationist point of view. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's another pretty old comment, and, yes, it was from a vandal that had a religious perspective about the article. He vandalised it for weeks.Kww (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured all that out pretty soon (save the vandal part). Perhaps I was just assuming he didn't know about Genetics and Primates, though I suspected he could be making a religous claim, and I think I just wanted to let him know either way. 70.108.220.14 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific rationale for removal

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)

The point the anon makes is valid, although I have given up stripping references to this in the article. Species essentially never make a completely clean break. Occasional interbreeding between largely isolated populations will occur for an extended period prior to complete reproductive isolation. The popular press representations of this make it seem far more astounding and unusual than it actually is.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

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)

Unnecessary. "such and such in pop culture" articles are nearly universally trivia magnets. I tend to oppose sections about it, and more vigorously oppose articles.—Kww(talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the Trivia guideline, "[a]void creating lists of miscellaneous facts". The guideline does say that if the information is "otherwise suitable" that it should not be removed outright, but none of the material was attributed to reliable sources, and most of it had no source at all. So, removal was necessary. A separate article would be even more unnecessary than a trivia section in this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible image

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)

Not particularly useful. At best, trying to link that image to the appearance of any hypothetical humanzee would be original research.—Kww(talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Observation

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)

See Also Section

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)

When did this happen?

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)!

Hybrid not possible.....

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)

This is actually covered in the article. I take it you didn't read the references on inter-species fertility in equines?—Kww(talk) 21:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, mules are a perfect example. The parent species of a Mule (Horse and Donkey) have differing numbers of chromosomes. 207.35.13.193 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reputable source for the ape experiments

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:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701.000-blasts-from-the-past-the-soviet-apeman-scandal.html?full=true

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)

Bonobo cross Chimpanzee hybrid theory

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)

Bassou the ape man

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)

Developmental failure

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)

Article title

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)

add also data about the 2006 discovery

It was a hoimanoid-pan hybrid I think. Not a modern one, but an actual hybrid. Find it and add it.

Please give a link or more info. Thanks Wythy (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there are many edit attempts - "Augusto Dembo" is a photo from a meme and a known hoax from "the Onion"-like article - https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/angolan-mother-on-deathbed-admits-to-12-year-old-son-your-father-is-a-chimpanzee/

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?

Saw his photo. Does not look much like a chimp. A case of pareidolia. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Tonie morzliwe

Julia muwi że pani od pszyrody muwiła źe to niemożliwy 188.33.224.179 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Pug/Husky "hybrid" correct term?

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)

I agree it does not make any sense as an example, its not a hybrid at all a better example would be between different python species, some small pythons can hybridize with extremely large ones found on a separate continent, or the small cat family where hybrid are seen with the house cat and other larger species like the serval/caracal 2603:6010:E200:2E4D:A58D:4DFE:ECB1:4392 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

AI page image

Why is this here? What value does it add? Has the uploader added other AI images elsewhere? I really don’t much like its presence. 92.40.199.85 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing it now. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

<3 92.40.199.95 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)