Comic Book Squirrel Monkeys
January 5, 2017 11:15 AM   Subscribe

I grabbed it by its tail, and it came down on, starting literally up by my shoulder, like a drill press it landed on my arm, and every bite was breaking flesh. It was literally like an unsewing machine. It was literally unsewing my arm coming down, and I was pouring blood. The testimony of someone who actually bought one of those little monkeys advertised in the back of comic books.

For more on crap advertised in the back of old comic books, the author of this book used to have a blog where he talked about what that stuff actually looked like and how it worked (or not).
posted by marxchivist (97 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite
 
Good grief. Can someone write a script to remove the word literally from current writing for me? I swear that I haven't seen that word used correctly in twenty years.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 11:23 AM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


see greg they're the same thing
posted by poffin boffin at 11:25 AM on January 5, 2017


I'm sorry, but this explodes my head in so many ways.

1. You're not going to get Ebola from a squirrel monkey.

2. "Parenthood was a walk in the park compared to owing a squirrel monkey. Schwind said, “This is a pet that is always making you aware of its presence. And he may be, like, picking up your car keys and moving them somewhere. You just don’t know what he might decide to do. It’s like having your crazy aunt running around, y’know?

3. "Nevertheless, Jeff did not let the death of his beloved monkey get him completely down, as his sister would soon buy him a replacement. The second monkey would be a Capuchin monkey, which are the infamous organ grinder monkey breed and a bit bigger than the squirrel monkeys."

4. "Were squirrel monkeys great pets? Perhaps. These animals were born to be free and move about through trees."

5. "In this era where everyone is wired, it is a little harder to imagine many people giving so much time and love to these low-tech little creatures." YES, clearly the problem with our technology-rich society is that people just don't pay enough attention to their pet monkeys poached from South American any more.
posted by ChuraChura at 11:27 AM on January 5, 2017 [25 favorites]


scientific proof
posted by beerperson at 11:28 AM on January 5, 2017


And, as always, NO. PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.
posted by ChuraChura at 11:28 AM on January 5, 2017 [16 favorites]


In the end, I'm just left really curious about that guy's aunt.
posted by ChuraChura at 11:31 AM on January 5, 2017 [25 favorites]


I swear that I haven't seen that word used correctly in twenty years.

LITERALLY twenty years?
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:32 AM on January 5, 2017 [42 favorites]


SMH at these kids playing on their iPhones instead of getting their arms mauled by wildlife until blood pours down like some unholy fountain

I always knew my childhood was missing something, but I never realized that it was being unzipped by an invasive species.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:32 AM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Sorry--we're talking about Sea Monkeys, right?

I can't imagine anyone in his right mind mail-ordering a God damn monkey out of a God damn comic book, but maybe I'm just not living my life to the fullest.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:32 AM on January 5, 2017 [13 favorites]


i was annoyed that none of the images were loading but then i realized that the article is from 2008. did the internet even have images in 2008? i don't think so
posted by poffin boffin at 11:34 AM on January 5, 2017 [5 favorites]


Look, I got savaged by undomesticable primates purchased from the advertisements of comic books all the time as a kid and I turned out just fine.
posted by cortex at 11:34 AM on January 5, 2017 [22 favorites]


the baby is also an ape
posted by poffin boffin at 11:36 AM on January 5, 2017 [9 favorites]


I always wanted to hatch quail eggs, but I didn't want the flying saucer incubator, I wanted the Imperial Star Destroyer grade incubator from "I'll Trade You an Elk."
posted by lagomorphius at 11:36 AM on January 5, 2017


did the internet even have images in 2008? i don't think so

OTOH we had mail-order primates, so it balanced out.
posted by Quindar Beep at 11:37 AM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


I swear that I haven't seen that word used correctly in twenty years.

It stopped meaning "in a literal sense" ages ago. You need a new dictionary.
posted by effbot at 11:38 AM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


I fell for this one but I can't say I didn't get my money's worth.
posted by lagomorphius at 11:38 AM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Here's another writer who ordered a comic book premium or two back in the day. However, this subject of this post has prompted me to investigate the claim in the Mental Floss article that no monkeys were ever awarded by Dean Studios...
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:40 AM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


I can't hear any of you over the sound of my totally awesome hovercraft powered by a vacuum cleaner motor built from plans advertised in the back of Boys Life magazine.
posted by dr_dank at 11:45 AM on January 5, 2017 [28 favorites]


I just want to know what those sleeping bags with the little canopy over the head were all about.
posted by bondcliff at 11:46 AM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


I was derailed into perusing the second link's archive of crap you could order from Scholastic. No monkeys or x-ray specs, sadly.
posted by mwhybark at 11:47 AM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


It stopped meaning "in a literal sense" ages ago. You need a new dictionary.

figurative usage of 'literally' goes back at least 400 years so this is a roundabout way of saying you must have a very valuable dictionary
posted by beerperson at 11:49 AM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]


Forget monkeys, I'm still wondering if those glasses really let you see people's underpants.
posted by selfnoise at 11:51 AM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


We got the Sea Monkeys, probably because Dad decided the disappointment would be educational
posted by thelonius at 11:56 AM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]


The second person in the subject post who named his monkey "Stanley" reminded me of the Leave It to Beaver episode where the Beav adopted a Macaque monkey from a "free to good home" message on a grocery store bulletin board. It was actually quite touching in the end (and Stanley's Little Old Man face was ever so endearing...)
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:56 AM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


this is a roundabout way of saying you must have a very valuable dictionary

a very unique one
posted by thelonius at 11:56 AM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


I just wanted the hoverboard.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:59 AM on January 5, 2017


I really, really wanted one of those submarines. I would have been crushed to find out it was flat-packed cardboard.
posted by tommasz at 12:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


MONSTER S-I-Z-E MONSTERS
7 FT TALL!


Just imagine your friends shock when they walk into your room and see the "Monster" reaching out—bigger than life-Frankenstein, the original man-made monster, that creation of evil genius that terrorized the world. A giant 7 feet tall, his eyes glow eerily as his hand reaches out—as aweful and sinister as the wildest nightmare. Yes—Frankenstein is 7 feet tall, in authentic colors on durable polyethelene, and so lifelike you'll probably find yourself talking to him. Won't you be surprised if he answers?
posted by Iridic at 12:00 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


I got Sea Monkeys as a college student. They were reasonably lively until the year ended and I had to move out of my dorm room. I poured them and their brackish water into a plastic bottle, wrapped it in a plastic bag and took it on the plane with me. (This was well before 9/11.) The bottle held up all right, but the Sea Monkeys didn't.
posted by Countess Elena at 12:05 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


The boy also devoted an entire summer to training the primate to stay in the backyard in his Long Island home, where the small ape
WELL WHAT THE FUCK NOW

They're good apes, Garg.
posted by Mayor West at 12:06 PM on January 5, 2017 [37 favorites]


Was this the same kind of monkey that Ross (in Friends) had ?
posted by k5.user at 12:07 PM on January 5, 2017


ChuraChura: And, as always, NO. PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

Tell that to my book about monkeys, published in the 1950s. There's a section about having monkeys as pets, which junior light thief and I agreed is actually a bad idea. (Photo of the book for future citation is forthcoming - I don't remember the exact title of the book, but I think it is All About Monkeys, which isn't turning up any good search results.)
posted by filthy light thief at 12:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

everyone forgets that humans are primates, and humans make excellent pets
posted by beerperson at 12:11 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


I would love to see the 1950s book about monkeys, Filthy Light Thief!
posted by ChuraChura at 12:11 PM on January 5, 2017


(Ross had a capuchin monkey, an even more terrible idea than having a squirrel monkey)
posted by ChuraChura at 12:13 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


everyone forgets that humans are primates, and humans make excellent pets

im kinkshaming
posted by poffin boffin at 12:13 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]


Was this the same kind of monkey that Ross (in Friends) had ?

That was Marcel, who was played by white-headed capuchin monkey named Katie, who has had a pretty good acting career. But apparently Katie should not be considered an ambassador for all capuchins.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:14 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Parenthood was a walk in the park compared to owing a squirrel monkey.

Now I can say that I'm not just childfree, I'm monkey-free as well!
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 12:15 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


The closest I've ever gotten to a monkey, in fact probably the only time I've seen a monkey that wasn't in a cage, was in Zion National Park of all places. It was just about the last place I expected to see a monkey.

It belonged to a woman in a wheelchair; it was her helper monkey. It was wearing a diaper. She said the monkey was her best friend. I'm always tempted to leave that part of the story out because I like the idea of monkeys roaming free in Zion. (I asked her permission to take the photo.)
posted by bondcliff at 12:19 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


everyone forgets that humans are primates, and humans make excellent pets

Speak for yourself. Took me three goddamn years to house-train mine, and she still shrieks at random and tries to eat all the play-doh.
posted by Mayor West at 12:20 PM on January 5, 2017 [23 favorites]


If there was one thing I discovered early on in my three-year career as Omaha's semi-official historian, it's that if you types "monkey" or "ape" into the newspaper digital archive, it always returned with a crazy story.

Hell, I wrote a few of them up.
People are bad with other primates, who do not enjoy being our playthings.
posted by maxsparber at 12:22 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


Speak for yourself. Took me three goddamn years to house-train mine, and she still shrieks at random and tries to eat all the play-doh.

you shouldn't have gotten an adult, they're much harder to train
posted by beerperson at 12:22 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


I like the author's cheerful description of different species of monkeys as "breeds."
posted by biogeo at 12:23 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


I like this thread. It's so very blue.
posted by infini at 12:24 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Another story of a comic book monkey.

I'm pretty sure I don't actually want to live in a world where anyone can buy a mail order monkey. . . but there's certainly a part of me that's jealous.
posted by eotvos at 12:24 PM on January 5, 2017


And, as always, NO. PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

No matter how adorable they look in tiny shearling coats at your local IKEA.
posted by GuyZero at 12:24 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


It stopped meaning "in a literal sense" ages ago. You need a new dictionary.

I'm no language snob, and fully understand that language is a dynamic thing. My objection is not to the use of the word instead of figuratively, although a good argument could be made that the distinction is worth preserving.

What annoys me is the constant interjection of the word, for absolutely no purpose. None of the three usages above is needed, at all. Removing the three instances would not affect the meaning in any way, and would only serve to improve the sentences in which they appear. It's meaningless babble, and it's becoming endemic. That word is literally not needed as it literally serves no literal purpose whatsoever. It's literally irritating when people literally insert unneeded words into literally every sentence because they literally think that it makes them sound literally smart.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 12:30 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


"Should we maybe not dropship totally untrained wild monkeys to people? Eh, whatever, it's the 70s!"
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 12:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]


It's meaningless babble, and it's becoming endemic. That word is literally not needed as it literally serves no literal purpose whatsoever. It's literally irritating when people literally insert unneeded words into literally every sentence because they literally think that it makes them sound literally smart.

posted by PareidoliaticBoy


I dunno, you sure you're not just seeing a pattern because you expect to see one?
posted by biogeo at 12:33 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]


NO. PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

Not a bad statement to make, since the article makes it seem pretty goddamned awesome. (Of course, not only do we no longer live in the world that would allow you to buy a monkey through the mail, but I doubt we live in one in which you could just take your monkey to the Bronx Zoo for free vet service.) I didn't order anything from the classic comic ads, but if I had, it probably would have been the X-ray specs, for, you know, reasons. (I'm slightly amused, slightly horrified that the Wikipedia page on the specs not only describe how the illusion is created, but includes a section on "Actual see-through devices" for the benefit of voyeurs and depowered Kryptonians.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:34 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


That word is literally not needed as it literally serves no literal purpose whatsoever.

Of what use is "whatsoever"?

Sometimes you need a word just to make the sentence swing.
posted by IndigoJones at 12:36 PM on January 5, 2017 [7 favorites]


People who wantonly use "breed" when they are describing a "species" are actual Enemies of the People, far as I'm concerned.
posted by faineg at 12:38 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


While we're at it, what use is "be" most of the time?

I pretty sure most of time we okay without most words in sentences. Why it big deal insist always use stupid helper words?
posted by biogeo at 12:42 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


bondcliff: I just want to know what those sleeping bags with the little canopy over the head were all about.

I can't tell you that, but I do actually own a little folding chair that you're supposed to tuck under your head when lying on the beach, soaking up the rays, maaaaan. S'truth! There's even a photo of a Nagle-looking 80s lady in a skimpy swimsuit on the package and everything.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:48 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Perhaps the problem was that his arm was held together by stitches in the first place?
posted by epj at 12:49 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


They need to start selling pygmy marmosets as pets, I want one. Probably will fit in a regular mailing tube.
posted by StickyCarpet at 1:11 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


*perks up*

Marmosets, you say?
posted by wenestvedt at 1:18 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


kermit_flail_arms.gif
posted by ChuraChura at 1:19 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


I'm just horrified that some faceless mail-order company was packing fucking primates into cardboard boxes with a facehole and just shipping them post. If I had a time machine I'd go back and kick them in their collective nuts.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:02 PM on January 5, 2017 [10 favorites]


see greg they're the same thing

They're good apes, Garg.

Where PareidoliaticBoy takes issue with the word "literally" being misused, I'll have to step in and say I take issue with the use of "ape" and "monkey" as if they were the same. They are not. They're not even the same clade. A squirrel monkey is a New World monkey, versus an ape which is not a monkey at all. They're both primates, sure, but you pretty much have to get all the way up to the order Primates to put the two in the same group.

Go by this:
Monkeys have tails, apes do not.
Further division for monkeys: New World monkeys have a prehensile tail while Old World monkeys do not.
posted by linux at 2:16 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


Here's a pet-monkey story from several decades ago. My friend M and some others were preparing his treasured MGA coupe for painting. They'd got the primer coat on, and were getting ready to shoot color when friend H showed up with his pet monkey (sorry, I don't know what kind.) Everybody stood around jawing about the car and stuff for a while, when suddenly an editorial comment streamed down from the rafters and splashed on the roof of the car. To this day, I am in awe of M's mellowness and self control. He didn't utter a harsh syllable, just put away the spray gun and waited for a monkey-free time to clean his car and proceed with the painting. It came out nice, too.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:27 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


Well, to be pedantic, only some new world monkeys have prehensile tails. Squirrel monkeys don't, spider monkeys do, capuchins kind of do. And, although I think monkey vs. ape is a useful distinction, taxonomically speaking that makes monkeys a paraphyletic group and so you could reasonably argue that apes are a clade of monkeys.
posted by ChuraChura at 2:51 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


His aunt was later diagnosed with the rarely seen malady, "ape madness". Doctors were unsure of its source.
posted by codacorolla at 3:12 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Ah, excuse me, "monkey madness".
posted by codacorolla at 3:30 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


I am troubled there is no mention of the late 70s scheme wherein a company would begin sending you small dangerous animals every month until you paid them to stop sending you small dangerous animals. A particularly inspired wrinkle of the scheme was that if you gave the company the names and addresses of three of your friends, you could get them to stop sending the small dangerous animals for an unknowable amount of time. Of course, the scheme was doomed from the outset because once the recipient was killed by the small dangerous animals (and they inevitably were, if not killed, really badly damaged both physically and emotionally) the small dangerous animals tended to pile up at the recipient's address, and you wound up with flocks of small dangerous animals roaming the streets, brandishing their flick-knives at old ladies and generally threatening a god-fearing populace.
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:31 PM on January 5, 2017 [6 favorites]


Well, to be pedantic, only some new world monkeys have prehensile tails

Sure. But it's definitely an easy way to identify most of them at the zoo.

taxonomically speaking that makes monkeys a paraphyletic group and so you could reasonably argue that apes are a clade of monkeys.

Sure, but that introduces an evolutionary classification. I'd probably just counter and say monkey means modern monkey, let's not get ancient primates involved.

It's just something I find annoying, personally. I don't correct people about this unless I know them. Heck, I find it hilarious and annoying that the Planet of the Apes franchise is an opposite misconception that humans aren't apes.
posted by linux at 3:50 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


And, as always, NO. PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

But humans are primates, so.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:20 PM on January 5, 2017


Sure. But it's definitely an easy way to identify most of them at the zoo.
Not really. If you only identified prehensile tailed monkeys as neotropical, you'd miss most of the common neotropical monkeys you find in zoos, including marmosets, tamarins, goeldi's monkeys, squirrel monkeys, titi monkeys, sakis, owl monkeys...

As far as ape/monkeys go, I largely agree that it's a useful distinction (and one that I use in my classes). But, you don't get to throw out evolution for the sake of useful distinctions, and if we're going to be picky, might as well be correctly picky.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:35 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


While we're at it, what use is "be" most of the time?


those mefites, they be beanplating
posted by pyramid termite at 4:40 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


My local animal sanctuary says that above the bears, wolves and mountain lions its the squirrel monkeys that are the biggest menace.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 5:37 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


And, as always, NO. PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

But humans are primates, so.


Enough about Chris Christie
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:56 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


I do think the ape/monkey distinction is useful despite "monkey" being a paraphyletic group, just as "fish" and "reptile" are useful distinctions even though both of those are paraphyletic as well. But it does mean that we're being picky over a somewhat artificial and very fuzzy distinction; the differences between Old World monkeys and New World monkeys are, broadly speaking, much greater than the differences between Old World monkeys and apes. I got less anal about the monkey/ape distinction when a primatologist friend of mine pointed out that it's a distinction somewhat peculiar to English; many (most?) other languages make no such distinction, nor do the English terms map onto any coherent taxonomic categories. I still encourage students to know and use the distinction correctly, but it's not the pet peeve it once was.
posted by biogeo at 6:17 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


Thw World Famous Tilley hat will protect you from the Rosicrucians. Or so I learned from Harper's back ads.
posted by benzenedream at 6:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


> I am troubled there is no mention of the late 70s scheme wherein a company would begin sending you small dangerous animals every month until you paid them to stop sending you small dangerous animals...

Rats. I still wish my parents had let me mail away for 12 small dangerous animals for only 1¢.
posted by Fiberoptic Zebroid and The Hypnagogic Jerks at 7:09 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


Mayor West: "everyone forgets that humans are primates, and humans make excellent pets

Speak for yourself. Took me three goddamn years to house-train mine, and she still shrieks at random and tries to eat all the play-doh.
"

I would too. Mmmmmmm, Play-Doh...
posted by Samizdata at 7:34 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


To continue this derail just a bit longer... what's always struck me as odd about descriptive grammar is that we're (mostly, now) totally fine with being descriptivist with "literally" and allow as how the word doesn't literally mean literally because people use it figuratively, and have for centuries. And with ape/monkey, the options are either a mild scientific prescriptivism (which only weakly supports the ape/monkey distinction in English), or a descriptivism that says that in actual practice ape and monkey are often used interchangeably. But I'm always puzzled by the one-way nature of this form of descriptivism. Surely the fact that a subgroup of language users feels strongly that one way is "correct" is also part of a cultural description? If we have two subgroups, one of whom feels that literally can be used figuratively and ape and monkey are exchangeable, and another subgroup who feels the opposite, why would descriptivism -- which purports to be a value-neutral sociological description of what people actually do -- always council us to side with one of these subgroups over the other? It seems just as culturally accurate and respectful to acknowledge the fervent prescriptivists as equally part of the culture, and equally "right" in their usage and norms. The upshot would be that descriptivism doesn't actually imply that it's ok to use "literally" figuratively or monkey for ape; but nor does it imply it's not ok. Descriptively, there is a disagreement among native speakers, and descriptively we can say no more. To instead side with one set of speakers over the other seems like back-door prescriptivism.
posted by chortly at 7:38 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


wenestvedt: "bondcliff: I just want to know what those sleeping bags with the little canopy over the head were all about.

I can't tell you that, but I do actually own a little folding chair that you're supposed to tuck under your head when lying on the beach, soaking up the rays, maaaaan. S'truth! There's even a photo of a Nagle-looking 80s lady in a skimpy swimsuit on the package and everything.
"

Pix or it doesn't exist.
posted by Samizdata at 7:40 PM on January 5, 2017


codacorolla: "His aunt was later diagnosed with the rarely seen malady, "ape madness". Doctors were unsure of its source."

Good thing there was never a Sumatran Rat-Ape then.
posted by Samizdata at 7:41 PM on January 5, 2017 [1 favorite]


Ray Walston, Luck Dragon: "And, as always, NO. PRIMATES DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

But humans are primates, so.


Enough about Chris Christie
"

Stop making primates look bad, regardless of their shit-throwing expertise.
posted by Samizdata at 7:43 PM on January 5, 2017


But, you don't get to throw out evolution for the sake of useful distinctions, and if we're going to be picky, might as well be correctly picky.

I don't throw it out. I just don't want to go down that road because it can get bogged down. Also, being picky about defining modern monkeys and apes is as correct as saying apes came from monkeys and so are also monkeys. However, I just fall into the school where just because something came from another thing doesn't mean it is still that something. We use the term evolution to mean growth in much the same way, where a person grows and evolves such that they are no longer what they were before. Same thing to me. Apes came from monkeys, but I wouldn't say they are still monkeys. At least, not in English.

I defer to your zoo knowledge. Prehensile tails are easy to see and so a quick way to make the distinction without going into the other differences, which are major since the split, if I remember correctly, precedes that of apes. But again, it's a simple, basic way to make a distinction if you aren't a primatologist or in a related field. The rest I'll read off the placard.
posted by linux at 8:19 PM on January 5, 2017


As promised: All About Monkeys (1958). Choice excerpts for your reading pleasure.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [2 favorites]


/scrolls down to bottom of page past related posts

/sees Mail-Order Friends: The Comic Book Squirrel Monkeys September 29, 2008

/notes posted by An Infinity Of Monkeys

/closes tab, says nothing

posted by Existential Dread at 8:44 PM on January 5, 2017 [3 favorites]


In the end, I'm just left really curious about that guy's aunt.

If you were this guys aunt, would you consider him competent to operate a motor vehicle?
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:52 PM on January 5, 2017


Existential Dread: Oh no! It must be a different url, and I searched for Squirrel Monkeys...really. Damn. *kicks pebble with shoe, walks away*
posted by marxchivist at 9:16 PM on January 5, 2017


As a child in the late 50s, the only thing I ever ordered out of a comic book was a bag of international stamps. They were awesome - in looking at their places of origin on a globe, it became clear that there were places you couldn't even drive to. Also, some places had triangular stamps! At that time The stamps that I had seen were pretty boring.

I must admit what I REALLY wanted to order was a WW II army surplus Jeep for $40. Unfortunately with my $0.10/week allowance things did not pencil out. Not sure I could have gotten a drivers license at the age of six, but it probably would have taken me at least ten years to get it running.

Can you please get your monkeys off my lawn? Many thanks.
posted by skyscraper at 11:31 PM on January 5, 2017 [4 favorites]


Also, being picky about defining modern monkeys and apes is as correct as saying apes came from monkeys and so are also monkeys. However, I just fall into the school where just because something came from another thing doesn't mean it is still that something.

Well, purely in the interest of being as anal and pedantic as this discussion has already been, this isn't really how modern taxonomy works. For example, for most modern taxonomists who adhere to cladistic monophyly in assigning taxonomic groups, we have the somewhat counterintuitive situation where birds are technically considered reptiles (more correctly, the taxon Aves is a member of the taxon Reptilia). This is because birds, being descendants of (and the only extant representatives of) the dinosaurs, are more closely related to crocodiles than to turtles or lizards. Although birds are highly derivative reptiles with a large number of obvious evolutionary specializations (feathers, flight, warm-bloodedness, etc.), their common descent with the crocodilians means that they share a large number of more subtle but very important synapomorphies (shared characters) with only a subset of other reptiles. Saying that birds are not reptiles leads to the somewhat awkward situation, then, where we have some reptiles (crocodiles) which are more similar to non-reptiles (birds) than they are to other reptiles (turtles and lizards).

By contrast, we don't have the same situation with mammals. There are no animals we identify as reptiles, extant or extinct, which are more similar to mammals than they are to other reptiles. A common term for the pelycosaurs and other pre-mammalian synapsids used to be "mammal-like reptile," but this term has fallen out of favor. Therefore we don't classify mammals as reptiles, instead saying that mammals and reptiles are both members of a larger clade, the amniotes.

Basically, modern evolutionary taxonomy is all about the idea that if something came from another thing, it is also still that something. Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification," and while modification can be extremely striking, the marks of descent are always still present and impossible to ignore.
posted by biogeo at 12:27 AM on January 6, 2017 [5 favorites]


The lesson is that there's always a higher level of pedantry.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:08 AM on January 6, 2017 [3 favorites]


MONSTER S-I-Z-E MONSTERS
7 FT TALL!


Does anyone know if S.S. Adams was the company selling so many of these, of if it just took over once they fell out of comic book fashion?
posted by rtimmel at 8:43 AM on January 6, 2017


biogeo: Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification," and while modification can be extremely striking, the marks of descent are always still present and impossible to ignore.

So you're saying that it is correct to call Curious George, a tail-less ape-creature a monkey? (Yes, this is an issue that has been bothering me as I read Curious George books that have no reference to him being any specific type of animal, and I am not alone in this particular line of questioning and debate.)
posted by filthy light thief at 9:51 AM on January 6, 2017


In a colloquial primatological sense, no (although my best guess if he is a monkey is some sort of macaque, who tend to have basically non-existent tails). From a broader taxonomic perspective, yes.
posted by ChuraChura at 10:00 AM on January 6, 2017 [1 favorite]


tend to have basically non-existent tails

Macaca fascicularis is outraged by your gross stereotyping!

My money says George is either a baby orangutan (ape) or a Barbary macaque (monkey), but it's definitely not clear.
posted by biogeo at 10:41 AM on January 6, 2017


Chrysostom: The lesson is that there's always a higher level of pedantry.

One of several possible lessons is that there's always a higher level of pedantry.
posted by oheso at 3:00 PM on January 6, 2017 [7 favorites]


I always thought he was a macaque, but my partner insists that they always thought he was a baby chimpanzee. (Speaking of 'pets' that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy....) A cursory google search to see if George has a canonical species turned up an delightful prediction from the Green, but overall as far as I can tell the "it's a very small baby chimp that became stylized" is probably the most likely explanation.
posted by sciatrix at 7:07 PM on January 6, 2017


Samizdata: Pix or it doesn't exist.

Since he doubted the existence of The Headchair, I present this evidence: https://goo.gl/photos/sz31KDRgjnXN6Sn59

So there!

(And since nothing exists that isn't presently being bootlegged out of Chinese factories, it looks like you can get knock-offs of this from a bunch of Alibaba vendors.)
posted by wenestvedt at 10:28 AM on January 7, 2017


(Beer can for scale only, not included in original sales packaging.)
posted by wenestvedt at 10:35 AM on January 7, 2017


Samizdata: "wenestvedt: "bondcliff: I just want to know what those sleeping bags with the little canopy over the head were all about.

I can't tell you that, but I do actually own a little folding chair that you're supposed to tuck under your head when lying on the beach, soaking up the rays, maaaaan. S'truth! There's even a photo of a Nagle-looking 80s lady in a skimpy swimsuit on the package and everything.
"

Pix or it doesn't exist.
"

I was schooled. That will teach me.
posted by Samizdata at 12:56 AM on January 8, 2017


I am only glad everyone born in the last twenty-odd years got a look at what they missed. :7)
posted by wenestvedt at 6:43 AM on January 8, 2017


« Older Daydreaming   |   Not now. Not ever. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments