Re: How close is "Kong" to a real gorilla?

[Guy Leahy <xrciseguy@sbcglobal.net>]

In the book The World of Kong: A Natural History of
Skull Island:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416505199/qid=1134694583/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-7685822-3606236?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Kong is described as a separate genus of primate
("Gigantoprimus" if memory serves), so would not be a
gorilla, per se. 

I haven't seen the film yet, but I did like the above
book. The artwork is very good, and the authors really
tried to create an integrated Skull Island ecology. 
The book reminds me a bit of Dougal Dixon's "After
Man" book. Some of the dinosaur names are interesting.
 For example, the V-rex is described as "Vastatosaurus
rex", which supposedly translates as "Ravaging-Lizard
King"... :-)

All of the dinosaurs have new names, except for the
sauropod, which is named as a separate species of
"Brontosaurus" (which, by the way, gives birth to live
young rather than lay eggs as an adaptation to such
large animals living on an island).  Perhaps the book
uses this name because paleontologists of the 1930's
didn't have many good examples of sauropods to compare
the Skull Island taxa to?

Guy Leahy


--- MarkSabercat@aol.com wrote:

> It is supposed to be a  fantasy movie after all, not
> a true-to-nature  
> docudrama...... I think it's pointless to engage in
> critiques of an ape which,  even 
> if it could attain that size, wouldn't be able to do
> all those incredible  
> acrobatics due to the constraints of physics.
>  
> I'm curious-- I haven't seen the movie yet, but is
> there any point at which  
> KK is ( or in the 1933 version, was), actually
> referred to as a gorilla?
>  
> Mark
>