In my world, there is a species from the Homo genus named Homo gigas. They are commonly called giants.

They are as massive as polar bears, and they never stop growing like kangaroos.

They have seal-like blubber.

They are closely related to Homo corpulentus (swamp humans/ogres), and Homo maritimus (marine humans/merfolk); together, they form the aquatic humans clade.

When we compare them to average anatomically modern humans, in terms of both intrapersonal and naturalistic intelligences, they are geniuses, and in terms of both interpersonal and linguistic intelligences, they are mildly mentally disabled (the reason for those things is because giants are as solitary as orangutans).

Their cradle is Northern Quebec, Canada, Western World.

Finally, they are omnivores with herbivorous tendencies like gorillas (except that they eat other kinds of animals than just insects; they also eat mammals, birds, echinoderms, etc.).

Contrary to anatomically modern humans, giants never invented fire or summer clothes because their large bodies and their vascularized fat make them better at dealing with the cold. Also, since they are nomadic browsers like gorillas, except that they are MUCH better swimmers, I wonder if their appendix would have a MUCH more important function than anatomically modern humans' appendix. I ask because anatomically modern humans have a tiny appendix because they cook their food and eat fewer plants than gorillas.

So, would giants have a bigger appendix than anatomically modern humans?

  • $\begingroup$ What is the relevance of their intelligence and whether or not they have invented fire or clothing? $\endgroup$ May 18 at 0:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @KerrAvon2055 He’s probably trying to detail the snot out of his question to avoid being accused of being “too vague”. I can sympathize. I often have to write multiple drafts for my questions because I’m worried about it getting closed for some reason or other. I think that’s why the OP has opted to include as many details as he can about these giants. $\endgroup$
    – Kal Madda
    May 18 at 0:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KerrAvon2055 The OP may have included the fact about fire for good reason. There is a common belief that the appendix helped us digest raw meat and as we started cooking meat it lost its function. If this idea is correct then a Homo species that never discovered fire would have a bigger appendix. But recent studies are moving away from that conclusion. Many biologists now believe that the appendix is a "safe house" for beneficial gut bacteria. This is because the appendix contains a particular type of tissue belonging to the lymphatic system and it is "out of the way" anatomically speaking. $\endgroup$
    – Martamo
    May 18 at 1:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Continued. Besides the raw meat theory there is another theory that suggests it helped with digestion. Some biologists support the idea that the appendix helped digest tough plant matter. This is because in many herbivorous mammals and other vertebrates the appendix is larger. $\endgroup$
    – Martamo
    May 18 at 1:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ They sound like Grizzley Bears. I also question them as marine mammals (for example, the fact that H. corpulentus lives in a swamp would not make it a marine species. Marine Mammals are classified by how much time they spend in ocean waters. To give an example Florid black bears (Ursus americanus floridanus) live in swamp lands but are considered land mammals. The Polar Bear (U. maritimus) is a marine species because it spends most of it's life on Marine ice and rarely come to dry land. $\endgroup$
    – hszmv
    May 19 at 18:38

1 Answer 1


Yes, they would value an appendix. The size of an appendix is actually determined by the size of bacteria, and certain fluid-flow variables that change more as a matter of chemical composition than of anatomy.

The theoretical value of the appendix is as a safe harbor for beneficial bacteria in our gut. It helps repopulate the gut after something like food poisoning forces the guts to flush everything out.

I don't see anything in your description that suggests that they would have less use for it. If they don't cook their food, then they're probably more likely to eat something that disagrees with them.

They also might have a hard time getting enough calories for their big brain. Cooking things significantly reduces the effort of digesting food, and makes vitamins more accessible.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ not cooking your food and eating a lot of plant basically guarantees eating something that impacts your gut flora. cooking breaks down a huge number of plant toxins, most of the things we call vegetables were bad to eat raw before we domesticated hem. $\endgroup$
    – John
    May 18 at 22:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .