Are there two species of Gorn?

[Epsilon IX]

This thread might be more relevent to the Trek Literature section, so feel free to move it there if you see fit.

In The Original Series, The Animated Series and Star Trek Online we've seen Gorn who have insect-like eyes, and who have five fingers on their hands. In Enterprise we saw a Gorn who had three fingered hands and eyes with pupils.

This has become all the more confusing because in the novel I'm reading at the moment Seize The Fire, in which the Gorn have a starring role, there are both Gorn with insect eyes and five fingers and Gorn with pupilled eyes and three fingers.

So does this mean there are two distinct species in the same genus (like Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis), or one is a sub-species (like the Aenar are to the Andorians), or are they just ethnic minorities of the same species? I'm confused!

 

[scotpens]

. . . So does this mean there are two distinct species in the same genus (like Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis) . . .

Actually, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are the same genus and species, but different subspecies. An example of different species of the same genus would be Panthera leo (lion) and Panthera tigris (tiger).

Since Gorns are fictional, you can classify them any way you want. Does the novel you mentioned have anything to say about Gorn morphology? Do the two types of Gorn represent different social castes or something like that?

 

[Kertrats47]

Yeah, in "Seize the Fire," there are multiple castes of Gorn (ie: The warrior caste, the tech-caste, and the political caste), and their appearance varies between the castes.

 

[backstept]

I'm also reading the book, and yes, your question is answered early in the book

 

[Epsilon IX]

[/QUOTE]Actually, Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are the same genus and species, but different subspecies. An example of different species of the same genus would be Panthera leo (lion) and Panthera tigris (tiger). [/QUOTE]

^Sorry, my bad. Then again I did get only a C in GCSE Biology after all.

 

[Finn]

^No. Neanderthals are considered a different species of Homo, not a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

One more thing, two individuals with a different type of eyes and number of fingers wouldn't even belong in the same genus.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^No. Neanderthals are considered a different species of Homo, not a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

One more thing, two individuals with a different type of eyes and number of fingers wouldn't even belong in the same genus.

I think thats up to debate currently. There is evidence pointing towards the sub-species angle. IIRC, some Europeans still carry some Neanderthal genes from interbreeding.

 

[Finn]

Yes. However it is very difficult to define species.

 

[Kelthaz]

It's a TV show. The different look is simply the result of a higher budget and a different design team. The Gorn in TOS and ENT are the exact same species and, from the perspective of Kirk or Archer, look exactly the same.

 

[-Brett-]

It's stuff like that that makes me hate the tie-in novels. They seem to think that every little thing needs explaining, as if we're all idiots who can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

The Gorn are a fictional species originally depicted in the '60s, looked cheesy, fake, and terrible even by the standards of the time, so they got an update for their next appearance 40 years later. No further explanation is required.

 

[Tosk]

I think it's good that the authors of the novels sometimes try to reconcile on-screen disparities. The current batch (Typhon Pact) even seem to have been designed from the ground up with that in mind. (At least in as much as I have read so far.)

(And personally, I found the updated Gorn as cheesy and fake as his ancestor.)

 

[scotpens]

. . . Neanderthals are considered a different species of Homo, not a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether Neanderthals should be classified as a separate species or the same species as modern humans.

One more thing, two individuals with a different type of eyes and number of fingers wouldn't even belong in the same genus.

That’s true for life on Earth, according to Linnaean taxonomy. For an extraterrestrial species, who knows?

BTW, what is the Gorns’ home planet called? Gornia? Gornus? Gornisht?

. . . The Gorn are a fictional species originally depicted in the '60s, looked cheesy, fake, and terrible even by the standards of the time, so they got an update for their next appearance 40 years later.

The Gorn in “Arena” didn’t look any cheesier or more fake than any other non-human creature played by a guy in a suit. Don’t diss the Lizard Man!

 

[T'Girl]

It's possible that the term "Gorn" doesn't represent a species at all, the term could refer to a political or social grouping of multiple species from multiple original home worlds. Or at least twp different species, both of whom are reptiles. Similarly, there is no species "Federation," but the bulk of the species in that group are mammals.

 

[CoveTom]

^ Bulk? Have we seen a member of the Federation that's not a mammal? Can't recall for sure.

 

[O'Dib]

Genetic engineering could explain the five fingers. Another experiment with superhuman dna gone awry? I've heard the insect eyes explained as goggles, or something.

 

[Sci]

It's stuff like that that makes me hate the tie-in novels. They seem to think that every little thing needs explaining, as if we're all idiots who can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

Or maybe it's not so much a matter of thinking it "needs" to be explained because fans "can't distinguish between fantasy and reality" as that the author just wanted to do things that way.

ETA:


ETA:

^ Bulk? Have we seen a member of the Federation that's not a mammal? Can't recall for sure.

In the novels, the Pahkwa-thanh, a species of reptilians who bear some resemblance to a cross between Jurassic Park-style Velociraptors and Komodo dragons, are Federation Members, as are the reptilian Gnalish. There are also the insectoid Nasat, the acquatic and mermaid-like Alonis, the amphibian-like Selkies from Pacifica, the jellyfish-like Lipul of the Federation Member world of Gemworld, the possibly non-mammalian Evora from INS, the humanoid-but-three-sexed Damiani, the bird-like Aurelians, the fish-like Antedeans, the non-humanoid Ontalians, the turtle-like Chelon of the Rigel system, the possibly mammalian but very non-humanoid S'ti'ach, the I'm-not-sure-how-to-describe-them Seleneans, the vaguely octopus-like Sulamid, the tripedal Triexians, the Horta of Janus IV, and the yo-mamma's-so-ugly Medusans.

Canonically, there are a number of Federation Members that seem non-mammalians, including the Arcadians, the Ariolo, the Bzzit Khaht, the Kasheeta, the Xelatians (questionable), the Zaranites, the Aaamazzarites (debatable), and the Algolians (debatable).

 

[Finn]

. . . Neanderthals are considered a different species of Homo, not a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether Neanderthals should be classified as a separate species or the same species as modern humans.

Fair enough

One more thing, two individuals with a different type of eyes and number of fingers wouldn't even belong in the same genus.

That’s true for life on Earth, according to Linnaean taxonomy. For an extraterrestrial species, who knows?

No. I don't buy the "alien card" in this case, especially with the eyes. The rate of mutations would have to be very high in a short time especially for the variation in the eyes. Our eyes are basically the same as the bony fish...

 

[137th Gebirg]

It's a TV show. The different look is simply the result of a higher budget and a different design team. The Gorn in TOS and ENT are the exact same species and, from the perspective of Kirk or Archer, look exactly the same.

Sadly, I too feel this is the case. Much akin to cranial ridges arriving on Klingons and Romulans after the events in TOS, Enterprise made a noble effort to rationalize it in-universe but, at the end of the day, it all boils down to the whim of the budget-gods. The Gorns suffer a similar affliction now.

 

[137th Gebirg]

It's a TV show. The different look is simply the result of a higher budget and a different design team. The Gorn in TOS and ENT are the exact same species and, from the perspective of Kirk or Archer, look exactly the same.

Sadly, I too feel this is the case. Much akin to cranial ridges arriving on Klingons and Romulans after the events in TOS. Enterprise made a noble effort to rationalize it in-universe but, at the end of the day, it all boils down to the whim of the budget-gods.

BTW, I've always thought that "The Gorn Crisis" graphic novel is also a good look into the much under-used species.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I've heard the insect eyes explained as goggles

They do nothing.