109,953pages on
this wiki

Back to page


This is the talk page for the article "Utai."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Near HumanEdit

I was just wondering, where are the Utai described as near human? It looks like a simple mistake, but I don't have access to all the cited sources to check. Crazymoon 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • They are described as such in the ROTS novelization. Doesn't make sense to me either.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I checked on Silly Dan's talk page after posting that, which also gives sources, but I didn't get back here to edit my question in time. I'll try and investigate a bit more next time first.Crazymoon 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There comes a time when one must wonder what to do when canon conflicts with common sense. these folks aren't "near-human" in any sense of the word. would we take their word for it if an official source said Wookiees were actually a species of insect-like fish?Darth Ceratis 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
        • If near-Human simply means common descent with Humans, then it isn't a problem. There's lots of life on Earth that looks stranger than this. - Lord Hydronium 03:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see how you can call something this dissimilar to humans "near-human," when something much more similar like the Nikto is "humanoid."Darth Ceratis 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Humanoid, and they may have confused the Utai with the Pau'ans. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's the only conclusion I can draw.Darth Ceratis 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Similarity in appearance doesn't mean that a species is more closely related; dolphins look more like sharks than humans, and yet they're closer to us than them. If the Utai are distant genetic offshoots of humanity and Nikto are unrelated, than the Utai would be more "near-Human" than Nikto. And the "near-human" reference is specifically applied to both. I'm not saying it isn't weird, just that it's not mind-bogglingly insta-contradiction impossible. - Lord Hydronium 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming, by the way, that "near-human" is being used in ROTS in the sense of how closely related a species is, not that they also have to look similar. Because if that's part of the definition, then of course it doesn't make sense. But if we look at "near-human", at least in the context that Stover used it, to just mean a genetic connection, then it's much less problematic. - Lord Hydronium 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Chimpanzee DNA is almost 99% identical to human DNA, but I wouldn't call then near-human. When I think of near human, I think of a species physically identical to humans in almost every way, with a few superficial differences. Like the Chiss.Darth Ceratis 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • This must be a mistake. We must clarify this. Graestan 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Clarifying always works! JadenKorr13 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I think Chimpanzees are near-Human. I think the Utai are cute near-Human critters, like the Chimpanzees.--Endor chicken
          • Or cute near-human critters like flounder... I didn't know there was a great debate going on, but I changed it. It's just not right. Far be it for I to argue with what's called 'canon' in the books and guide, but calling these things near-human is like calling a cat a piranha. It's just not correct.MarxismIsLove 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Canon > Common sense. -- I need a name (Complain here) 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
              • We've seen slip-ups in canon before, especially in writing. Sha Dun anyone? Utai are hardly near human. It's mentioned further down in the page, which is all that matters. It's mentioned, I don't think it necessarily belongs at the top, because the canon status of it is arguable. Therefore, I'm zapping it again. It's on the page, but I'm cutting it out of the top due to an overabundance of illogic. MarxismIsLove 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
                • It's canon. Remove it again and you're getting blocked. - Lord Hydronium 03:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Try being less of a bureaucrat. MarxismIsLove 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Near human!? They look nothing like humans! Darth Newdar 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, they have feet, hands, and at least remotely decent faces. That seems pretty human to me! JadenKorr13 06:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                • From the page itself ...Utai had pale, hairless skin and large, oblong heads. Two glassy black eyes protruded on thick stalks from the Utai's face, which was otherwise unremarkable, aside from a small, puckered mouth...
              • How is that human? It's like saying a snail is like a turtle because they both have shells. Darth Newdar 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                • In that way, you just proved yourself wrong. JadenKorr13 07:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps you guys passed over what I posted a year ago. They are humanoid in nature. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Take that Newdar! JadenKorr13 07:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                • How much two species are related has very little to do with how much they look alike. Utai are near-Human. They don't look much like Humans. The two facts are not contradictory. - Lord Hydronium 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • But how can something be related without looking like it at all? Darth Newdar 07:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • Easily. Take a look at a human, then a chimpanzee, which shares 94% of its DNA with humans and is very closely related on the evolutionary tree. Or if you want to branch out a little more than that, the amount of variation among just the primates is quite a lot. Depending on how close a genetic relationship we want to say counts for being "near-Human" (and in a galaxy where most species from different worlds are not related in any way, shape, or form, that could be at a maximum any relation), Utai could be easily accommodated within it. - Lord Hydronium 07:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To quell this argument... Edit

I didn't want my comment to get lost in the previous discussion. Anywho...

Yes, the Utai look nothing like humans, so how can they be classified as near-humans? Well, you could hold the same argument for the hyrax being related to elephants. A hyrax and an elephant look nothing alike, and yet they're closely related. Somewhere in the distant past, the hyrax and the elephant shared a common relative, back when the creatures were more diverse. The same could be said about the Utai and Pau'an. Perhaps they shared a common near-human relative back when there was more diversity within that order. Now, though, those ancestors had long died out, leaving just the Utai and the Pau'an. When put into that perspective and taking millions of years of evolution into account, it doesn't seem as far-fetched. Trak Nar Ramble on 07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I accept Darth Newdar 07:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Still don't buy it. All other near-humans are basically 99.whatever% identical to humans. Since Utai probably aren't, I wouldn't consider them near-human. Semi-human maybe, but not near. 16:15, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
      • I know this is totally fanon, but it seems to me that life on Utapau may not be truly native to Utapau! Nos Monsters (and Varactyls, wich are their cousins) are closely related to the Swamp Slugs of Dagobah; the Utai are related to Humans and probably the Pauans too, as they look very humanoid. Smells like exogenesis to me
               Rots history

 Hi I'm new and noticed that in this articles history you forgot to include what they do in rots.just took the liberty of adding it myself.

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki