Lit Chiss and Zabracks a different species, or instead a subspecies?

When playing TOR, i noticed that the Chiss and Zabraks are treated as "aliens", as if their separate species from normal humans.

But are Chiss and Zabraks really a separate species from humanity, or a subspecies?

Should they also be considered aliens?

That goes into the question of what is an "alien" in star wars. Are aliens simply creatures that are not biologically related to humans (and also not originating from their homeworld), or are aliens simply a different species then humans, even though they could be biologically related to humans?

We know that new species can come from already existing species over long periods of time. Eventually a new species is created when they can't create fertile offspring with another group.

So is this what happened to the Zabraks? Yes TCW showed hybrids between Zabraks and humans, but this could have happened not naturally (via darkside techniques), so we don't necessarily know if Zabraks can naturally produce fertile offspring with humans.

And what about the Chiss? Can they still interbreed with humans and have babies that aren't infertile? If they can, then it would make sense to classify them as a subspecies of humanity.

So what do you think?

 

They are Aliens, as they are not human, even "Near-Human" has essentially been dumped down to mean humanoid. Though as several novels have pointed out it is a deeply racist remark, as it is very human centric. Though of course there are several Alien species that are very human like at least in appearance.

It is essential Sith Alchemy at play, so yeah kind of hard to say.

Even IU they are not sure, it is possible they are a lost human colony, though even if they are, they have "evolved" very far away from it, if they even ever were human that is.

 

Well the wookiepedia

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Chiss

says they are an official offshoot of humanity, and that this has been proven through genetic analysis.

Though i wonder what star wars source the wookiepedia got that from.

So it seems some IU do know for sure that the Chiss are biologically related to humans.

 

Sagas Unknown Regions guide mentions that actually, though only says the results "indicate" such a thing, somehow that never sounded like they were really sure, whilst the TOR Encyclopedia at least mentions that their Sith Allies certainly do not treat them as humans and see them as just another race of Aliens useful for them as minions.

 

If the Chiss were somehow related to humans, I would really want to know from where they got their red eyes.

 

There was a sale at the same party store they got their blue makeup from.

 

Or from the chiss perspective: how humans lost theirs

 

I like to think that the Chiss are actually evolutionary descendents of these guys.



They got the self important dick act down pat.

 

Who are they?

 

The Dunmer of the Elder Scrolls series. There are actually some rather interesting parallels between the two species.

 

Star Wars presents the genus Homo as being a hyper-diverse genus where species divergence has happened rapidly. There are hundreds of listed 'Near-Human' species, and in the absence of canonical evidence to the contrary they should be treated as such. There are a number of human sub-populations in the setting that are not labeled as species, so that boundary has been established.

Regrettably, in-universe the term 'Near-human' has been given political connotations that strip it of having any real definitional value. This is annoying since it makes classification much more difficult by making sources untrustworthy.

Additionally there are various pieces of evidence suggesting that the evolution of many or perhaps most of the common sentient species in Star Wars was artificial and not natural at all, which means the traditional systematics paradigm simply does not apply to the discussion. In fact the closest parallel to the 'Near-human' cluster of Star Wars might be the myriad dog breeds on Earth.

 

Seemed pretty unambiguous to me. If they wanted us to be unsure, they'd have put "Genetic analysis suggests".

Instead it's:

Genetic analysis indicates that the Chiss are an offshoot of humanity dating back to sleeper ship colonization attempts.

More ambiguous was the earlier reference in the Legacy Campaign Guide:

Their origins are unknown, even to the Chiss themselves, although some scientists believe that they are descended from an isolated human colony lost to time.

Curtis Saxton was a big fan of the "Chiss are human" theory- though he based it on their very human appearance, and Thrawn's cloning cylinder in Hand of the Future being the same as those he used for his cloned human army.

 

Sagas Unknown Regions and Darth Plagueis also point at that it really is little more that a term for humanoid.

Which funny enough is set later. So maybe they went back on it.

Now that is just outright random even for him.

 

Earlier in the sense that the Legacy Campaign Guide was written before Unknown Regions was.

Full text of Saxton's Chiss argument:

Grand Admiral Thrawn is the most famous example of a people who call themselves the Chiss. They dwell in the "Unknown Regions", which presumably means that they have settlements on a world circling a straggler star that has ended up outside the main galactic disk.
All of the Chiss observed to date have pale blue skin, black hair, and red eyes. The eyes are sometimes described as being luminous, but it would be more realistic to suppose that the skin of the eye has a highly reflective sheen or is flourescent in red light.
In all other respects, the Chiss appear to be baseline humans.
One of the most interesting signs of their biology is the fact that Thrawn bled with red blood [The Last Command, p.424]. If his blood were a different colour, then it would have been necessary to assign him biological origins completely separate from the haemoglobin-using vertebrates of Earth, and his human-like form would have been very hard to explain. Fortunately he bleeds like any other human man (and he appears to have vital organs in the same part of the thorax). Therefore it remains possible and likely that Chiss are truly human.
A second important point arising from the redness of Chiss blood is the strong difference between this colour and the hue of Chiss skin. Terrestrial humans who are albino or whose racial derivations make them poorly pigmented appear pale pink because of the colour of blood within their largely colourless surface tissues. Humans with skin colour other than pale pink must have strong pigment. The colour of Chiss skin pigment is probably significant. It may indicate something about their usual environment (eg. the ambient sunlight) or it may be a case of Darwin's "sexual selection" (runaway evolution of a feature that has no adaptive value except in the aesthetic preferences of members of the opposite sex, as in the bright plummage of some species of birds).
A final clue to the humanity of the Chiss comes from the suggestion of cloning Grand Admiral Thrawn, which was the fear or hope of many in Spectre of the Past and Vision of the Future. Either the technology of the cloning tanks acquired from Mount Tantiss [exposed in Dark Force Rising] is general enough to work with a wide range of species (which would be a remarkable accomplishment for something to mimick an organ that is as species-specific as a womb), or else Chiss wombs are nearly identical to human wombs.

 

I meant IU, as the Legacy guide is set in the Legacy comics time, whilst TUR afaik does not go beyond the Legacy of the Force novels.

As does pretty much anything on earth

They have been cloning replacement organs for a wide range of species in the GFFA, I am pretty sure they have worked it out, as they would have to adjust the Tanks for each Donor separately anyway.

 

True- most of the exceptions are invertebrates (and the Antarctic Ice Fish, which has yellow blood).

 

I think Saxton meant that red blood is something you see in humans and should be unusual for species with blue skin.

 

There are mammals on Earth that have small amounts of blue skin (like mandrills) but nothing blue all over.
Plenty of blue-feathered birds though.

 

but feathers are more akin to hair than skin

 

More unusual then deep blue skin? Also if he breath oxygen there are not that many alternatives to red blood, even if they all suffered from something like Methemoglobinemia which can give you a slight blue skin hue, they would still have red blood (though often slightly darker in color then usual).

 

That's the way I interpret it, I don't know if it is what Saxton meant

 

Near humans are human offshoots descended from isolated human colonies. and since on earth 25,000 years ago we had Neanderthals, and Humans sharing the same planets with Hobbits (I forgot proper name) in the same niche surviving mammals take place in, I suppose Blue, Pink, red skin isn't all that odd for humans trapped on planets with very different environments.

Humanoids are aliens that share human build, or even features but are not descended from the base line species.

 

Near Human seems to actually really just mean humanoid, as I am sure neither Balosar (which is the most human like of these), Dresselian, Klatoonians, Aqualish or Kaleesh are even remotely related to humans.

 

I don't think that's true. The term "humanoid" refers to aliens/machines that have a form similar to humans (walk upright, 1 head, 2 arms and legs).

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Humanoid

While "Near-Human" refers to groups that are actually descendents from humanity, and therefore aren't even aliens.

 

Maybe the Core-worlders use Near-Human in cases where Humanoid would be more accurate.