Horsing around with musteloids.

From: Donald R. Oddy <donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 12:09:11 GMT


>From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>

>Trotsky (not) on horses:
>> Well, I didn't mention them, because I know they have multiple,
>> unrelated, origins, like the racoons do. :-) But, of course, they do
>> have obvious different breeds, so that might be less of a surprise to
>> people.
>
>If one were to take RW biology seriously though (always a dangerous
>thing to do... <g>, I'd have thought horses would be a good deal more
>"surprising" in this regard. There's only one (modern) species of
>horse, and I don't think the "breeds" of horse have much in the way
>of significant genetic diversity. OTOH I believe there are several
>different species of raccoon...

There is a second species of horse - the Przewalski horse which is genetically distinct (see www.horsenet.org/przewalski.htm). It's a real world example of breeds in one species having a greater variation in appearance than between different species.

>I'm frankly still entirely at a loss as to Greg's thinking, and indeed
>his meaning here. If the "different" animals don't have to be separate
>species (whatever that means (esp. in Glorantha), can evidently
>interbreed enthusiastically, then I can't see how it can be anything
>other than a defeasible, if not outright infeasible, assumption that
>origins in different otherworlds must maintain some sort of strictly
>separate identity. Even setting aside the earlier question of their
>"convergence" to similar but doggedly separate entities.
>
>It seems to me that of course, in some cases there will be entirely
>different, mythically valid accounts for similar-but-different things.
>But equally, it's the nature of myth that there will be entirely
>different, mythically valid accounts of the _same_ thing, in some
>cases. (Be it a species of animal, the sun, etc.) If there this
>were not so in Glorantha, I don't see how this can help but make it
>a less interesting place mythically than it otherwise would be -- and
>indeed hitherto appeared to be. After all, animals, like humans,
>are creature of the inner world; it's not as if they _have_ to be
>irrevocably wedded to one and only one other world.

I hadn't picked up the point about humans being theistic, animistic, etc. until Greg's recent post but I don't see any problem - individuals being tied to one other world explains things like Orlanthi shamens. Basically at some stage in the past one of their ancestors was an animist and the Gloranthan equivelent of genetics produced an animist in this particular individual. Of course this could be changed by heroquest and perhaps is done on a regular basis by some Malkoni churches where theistic and animistic babies are ritually converted to monotheists - origin of St. Worlanth perhaps?

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail