This is the talk page for the article "Near-Human."

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

Chiss and Arkanians = Near-Humans?Edit

Really, this list seems to provide no evidence for the common ancestry of say the Chiss and humans, or Arkanians and humans, even though it explicitly states that common ancestry seperates Near-Humans and humanoids.--The Erl

  • I think we're meant to assume any species which is classed as Near-Human has common ancestry with Humans, even if the details of their ancestry is uncertain. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, of course, but I can't imagine a source that explicitly states that the Chiss is a near-human species. Or rather, I can, but the authors don't seem to worry about the fine points, so they may very well not have meant that.--The Erl
      • Don't they call them near-human in the WOTC sourcebooks? —Silly Dan (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't read those, so you may be right. And of course sourcebooks would be held to a higher standard of precisiion. The other thing that bothers me, of course, especially for the Chiss, is that some of the species have been established with a history difficult to reconcile with human ancestry. What would Coruscanti be doing at Csilla?--The Erl
          • I actually haven't read the Chiss entries in the WOTC sourcebooks either, but the WEG sourcebooks which originated the term Near-Human do mention that Humans and Near-Humans have common ancestry. Other source also mention that Human prehistory is uncertain, so there's plenty of room for far-flung long-lost colonies founded under mysterious circumstances. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Too true. On the other hand, specific sources have yet to be stated. Can someone who owns one of the listed sources check the entries for the specific species? The ErlErl 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
              • I think this is sufficiently sourced: as long as the articles on specific types of Near-Humans are properly sourced, there's no need to add more here. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't speak for the Arkanians, but Star Wars Gamer 5 explicitly and in detail discusses the Chiss having been descended from humans. jSarek 10:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective- the term 'near human' may mean an 'in-universe' assumption of ancestery due to similarities. The largest similarity would be that their anatomy is 'near' enough that its the same.

In theory this would be something as common as "all the parts are mostly the same" ie two lungs, one heart, similar parts and systems. Or it has a closer to meaning that the species are infact genetic relatives. (From a galaxtic view point a shark and monkey are similar because they both have the same/similar genetic design and evolution. Where as a rancor and and a shark would not be similar at all) Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • Exactly so (though I suspect DNA would be more accurate than just anatomy.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Are Boltrunians and Siths really near-human? There are other humanoids that resemble humans more than these two MoffRebus 10:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm not completely certain about the Sith: that might just be an inference from the fact that they interbred with Human Dark Jedi. However, the description of Maw in The Dark Forces Saga IDs the Boltrunians as Near-Human. (You didn't ask, but the Taung are called Near-Human in the NEC.) —Silly Dan (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Utai are Near-Human?Edit

What's the source on that? The look like Near-Grann or something, not a mere mild step away from standard humans. MaclimesZero

  • See the BTS note on Utai: there are several sources calling them Near-Human, and they haven't been retconned away yet. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. I don't like it, but canon is canon. Thanks alot! (That was me before I figured out how to sign my name!) MaclimesZero 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

These are NOT near-human speciesEdit

There are some species in the gallery that are definitely NOT near-human and should be removed. They are:

Also, Hapans aren't near-human. They are human, just like Corellians are human. They are humans from the Hapes Cluster. So unless I hear some dissenting opinion with valid reasoning, I'm going to remove them. - JMAS 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • According to their own article, Hapans are not human, but I think you're right as every source I have checked says they are humans.--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 15:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but if you look at the "Biology" section it says : Hapans were biologically the same as Humans, but the main difference is that the Hapans were bred over many generations to be beautiful. So it seems there is contradictory information in the article. I'm going to remove any mention of "near-human" from the article. - JMAS 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, you already got it. Thanks. - JMAS 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • But I wonder from where this mistake originated...--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
          • They are described as Near-Human in Alien Encounters, but this may be more for RPG rule purposes than anything (since they are Human, but with special abilities.) Any group with small differences will straddle the line between N-H species and Human race, since we can't exactly sequence their DNA or anything to be certain of how different they really are...—Silly Dan (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As for the other species you've listed: Boltrunians are called N-H in "The Dark Forces Saga" articles, Khommites in Ultimate Alien Anthology, both Utapauans in the ROTS novel (according to JustinGann -- see his note on my talk page), and the Lowen look like a sample Near-Human character in the 2nd Ed WEG RPG main book, so I suppose the SWAJ listed there as a source calls N-H too. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • According to JustinGann? Anyone else care to confirm this? How does the RPG compare to reference books on the Canon scale?--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Equally. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Boltrunians are called N-H in "The Dark Forces Saga" articles; Meaning the Dark Forces Saga article here on Wookieepedia? What canon source though? - JMAS 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
            • No, I meant the one on the WOTC website. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • S'kytri - also not Near-Human, though I could be mistaken from a canon perspective. The image in their article looks about as far from Near-Human as you can get. Are they explicitly stated as being Near-Human? Xavic Kae 23:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • There's a comment in the wikicode for that section sourcing that claim to Star Wars Gamer 1. Can anyone confirm? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Confirmed: the text reads "S'kytri are winged near-humans, tall and muscular, with handsome human faces." However, the next source describing them says they're egg-laying mammals, which puts them a bit farther biologically from normal humans than other NHs. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why Pau'an were removed from this article. Is there any source that retcons the RotS novel that said they were near-humans? Trobon 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to my knowledge (and their article still properly lists them as NH.) Then again, we don't need to list every single NH species in this article. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This Bickering is pointless.Edit

JMAS, denying canon with lack of canon evidence of your own due to incomplete research and/or personal opinion and/or forced interpretations is futile. Since you ask for verification of my claims, I will show you scans of the canon sources Iresearch. I do not not what further proof can be offered you, save you buy these books and look up the passages yourself.

Prologues) Near-humans in general and the RPG as canonEdit


Revised Core Rulebook page 322

  • RCR p. 322: "near-human species...have typically arisen through genetic engineering...or by living in an unusual environment for hundreds of generations. While some near-humans might have special abilities, for the most part they differ only from baseline humans in minor ways (such as appearance, altered lifespans, enhanced manual dexterity, and so on)."
  • The RPG is canon and cannot be contradicted simply by an oft-repeated personal opinion. As has been already noted, RPG and reference books are equally canon. However, those familiar with RPG products well-know that a large percentage of the information found in the DK "coffee table" and Essential Guide reference books was basically PARAPHRASED from RPH books, whether WOTC or WEG, so trying to "trump" the RPG with reference books as being more canonical is rather pointless.

1) HapansEdit

RVR p. 322: "The Hapans and Wroonians are widely known near-human species." Note that this refers to Hapans not only as near-humans but as a SPECIES! Furthermore, it indicates they are near-humans as are WROONIANS; if you will not acknowledge Hapans as near-human, neither can you do so for Wroonians.

Furthermore, JMAS, you state: "They are human, just like Corellians are human. They are humans from the Hapes Cluster." Note the Revised Core Rulebook specifically CONTRADICTS your claim. It specifically lists Corellians as a local culture of normal humans with Hapans as a near-human example in CONTRAST.

Now, please consult the following canon webpage: [1] Note this quote: "The Humans of Hapes exhibit mores and values shaped by their matriarchal society, and are physically different from baseline Humans in two major ways: their almost universal physical beauty, and a form of genetic night blindness."

Note that the quote differentiates the Hapans from BASELINE humans (meaning they are near-human). Note that the RCR states most near-humans differ from "baseline humans in minor ways," wheres the webpage says they are "physically different" (see the parallel). THe RCR says near-humans have " living in an unusual environment for hundreds of generations...[and may differ in] appearance." Hapans live for hundreds of generations (some 4 millennia) in ISOLATION in an unusual environment: the Hapes Cluster, isolated by the Transitory Mists. This unusual environment led to a limited, selected gene pool, resulting in the change in appearance of universal beauty and increased height. The intense light of the cluster resulted in another physical change: decreased use of eyesight in bright light.

  • Technically, the "Hapes: Ladies First" article considers them humans (with the same feats and skills), just humans with a genetic predisposition towards beauty and night-blindedness (represented as a +2 bonus to Charisma and additional penalties in low-lighting) owing to thousands of years of selective breeding. Sounds more like the distinction between different breeds of dogs than an actual seperate species. I still don't know why the Kiffar and Lorrdians are considered near-human, other than the fact that Hoole wanted to say "ooo, look at this."--LightWarden 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, virtually EVERY other canon source says Hapans are humans, so.....

2) KhommitesEdit


Ultimate Alien Anthology p. 86


Power of the Jedi Sourcebook p. 67

Note both of these quotes call Khommites near-humans. Khommites have arisen through "genetic engineering" to quote the RCR (i.e., their cloning). They differ from baseline humans in "appearance" (their head ridges, skin color, etc.). Furthermore, for independent research,m I diret you to page 197 of UAA, which lists the following examples of "near-human species" which are easily effected by the Elixir of Infatuation: "Arkanians, Chev, Chiss, Dantari, Khommites, and Zeltrons."

3) BoltruniansEdit

First of all I direct you to Gamer 4, the first source to name the Boltrunian species and call it near-human:


Gamer 4 p. 45

Also direct your attention to this canon webpage: [2]

Note both call Boltrunians near-humans.

Note their differences from humans are so minor they do not even differ in game stats. Their differences amount to appearance: enlarged outer ears, head ridge, facial ridges, skin color, possibly pointed teeth (though those could be artificially sharpened). Boc's article may indicate that Boltrunians have an extended lifespan (as mentioned as a near-human trait in RCR), but this may just be because he is a Force-user.

4) UtapaunsEdit


"He knew the inhabitants were near-human..." -- RotS novel, page 261

As for the Utai and Pau'ans: I do not intend to scan proof (my reliability should be established by now, and anyone with any of the following sources can check these facts):

  • The ROTS novellization refers to both species as near-humans.
  • Page 104 of Complete Locations and and page 171 of The New Essential Guide to Alien Species indicate Utai and Pau'ans are "cousins" of common ancestry, descended from colonists.
  • The miniature companion book stats for the Pau'ans also calls them near-humans.
  • The OWS at [3] refers to Utai and Pau'ans as "cousins" as well.

Personally, I ALSO take issue with the idea of Pau'ans and Utai as related to each other and to humans. Unlike the three previously mentioned species, I find their being called "near-human" difficult to explain. Yet it is, however unpleasant, a CANON FACT unless it is overruled some day, with statements in reference books, RPG sources, AND a movie novellization.JustinGann

  • Thanks to Amazon's "search inside" feature, I didn't have to look too hard. I don't think it makes a lot of sense, but there it is. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Why arnt the Zhell on this page, Doesnt it say on the Zhell page that Humans and possibly some if not most near-humans may have possibly evolved from the Zhell? - "Awar 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)".

  • The New Essential Chronology calls the Zhell "human nations", though. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Zhell where techicly not Human but where a Near-Human species that Humans evolved from like ther earth Cro-Magnon! - "Awar 12:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)".
    • If the NEC calls them humans, they're humans. That's all there is to it, unless you can quote a relevant, canonical source. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you add ...Edit

Before you add a species to the lists in this article, whether you add it to the main body of the article or to the "possible near-humans" listed in the BtS section, please make sure you have a source other than guessing that they look sort of human. Thank you. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Twil'leks near-human? Aayla Secura 05:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • We'd need a specific source for that. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I dont like the idea that Lorrdian are counted as near humans, after all they are just humans with another culture. But that doesnt matter, they are still humans! Just check the article about Lorrdian youselves :) The article says " The Lorrdians were genetically identical to all other baseline Humans". Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • Which is why this article only states they were sometimes classed as NH. Some sources do call them NH, though most don't. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Why arent zabraks counted as near humans if (for example)Utai is near humans? Isnt Zabraks more similar to humans than the utai is? Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • It is what it is. I keep seeing "I don't like" on this talk page. I suggest you take it up with LFL instead of mentioning every single oddity that pops up, because with this topic, it's nothing BUT oddities, and we have to live with it. See also the Ewoks TV series. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 04:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC) I also thought i'd add something to this, but instead of Zabrak's, about Twi'leks. I wasn't sure what bit to put it in. Anyway, Twi'leks are seen a lot as objects of desire, both as dancers in many canon sources and as 'masseurs'. I was thinking that you'd think that someone who is so lusted after by male humans would have to be one that could be...bred...with, so could you consider the Twi'leks near-human on this basis?

  • No. For a species to be considered Near-Humans, it must be specifically listed as such in a canonical source (Something like "XXX is a Near-Human species" in "The Whatsoever Guide to Whatsoever"), or at least some more precise proof should be required (A known biological child of a Twi'lek and a Human -not adopted- in the canon would make Twi'leks at least probably Near-Humans). Hutts also seem to lust after Twi'leks, and that does not suggest that the two species are biologically related.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Near-Humans?Edit

  • Twi'leks, Zabrak, Askajians, Feeorin, Dubravans, Meres, Elomin, Yuuzhan Vong, Kumumgah, Woostoids, Falleen, Balosars, Bimms (the furry race), Cereans, Equines, Evocii, Locans, Sharu, Schenors (Right, possibly), Trens and Clawdites. Too meany possible species, though I believe all are near-Human species in a way. Eny thoghts to share?--Endor chicken
  • There are definite arguments for at least half of those species not being related to humans at all. Clawdites are semi-reptilian, Kumumgah are only near-human if Tuskens and Jawas are, Cereans have a doubled brain and an extra heart in their heads, Equines only look human from the waist up, the external link in the BTS section has one man's opinion on why the Twi'leks are unlikely to be human-derived, etc., etc. Let's not overload that section with every species that looks sort of human unless it can be proven to be a common fan belief or an inference from canon based on something more than "they sort of look like Humans." —Silly Dan (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (The Utai, who don't look like humans at all but are canonically described as such, are a counterexample.) —Silly Dan (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, even if they are or not, I still believe that all the species mentioned are near-Humans. That "feeling in the gut" feeling usaly tells me it is right, but I'm not ESP.--Endor chicken
    • And my "feeling in the gut" might be something else entirely. We need canonical confirmation before we can include any species. Gonk (Gonk!) 13:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I read on The Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia that some of the species mentioned are near-Human, dose that count as a source for near-human status?--Endor chicken
    • That's not an official source, so no. However, some of the apparently misidentified species are already mentioned in the BTS section. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could people please stop adding speculative near-humans to the list in this section without presenting any real evidence for it? —Silly Dan (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weren't the Yuuzhan Vong mentioned as a near-human species in Destiny's Way?--DarthKenny 04:11, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

added more informationEdit

I added more information on the NH list, by using Evolution sci for proof. The species that are aquatic would be incapable of breeding with Humans because of their biology, the inhabitants of Utapau are the same as well as the Miraluka, the Chev, the Grannans, and the Yaka. Their biology and ecology would make Humans breeding with them impossible. The ones marked with "unknown" are ones that don't have much information right now. I hope this helps.-Endor chicken

  • I've reverted those changes. There were no sources provided (hint, we need Star Wars sources, not "gut feelings"). And secondly, a lot of it was plain wrong. Miraluka and Humans can interbreed, as seen by Krynda Draay (50% human/50% miraluka) and Lucien Draay (75% human, 25% Miraluka). Please only put in verified information. This is not a fanon encyclopedia. QuentinGeorge 10:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How was I supposed to know? Why don't we have a Hybrid category so we can see all Near-Human hybrids? The Star Wars Fanon Wiki has one, why can't someone make one?-Endor chicken

  • The SWFanon Wiki is different. We only make categories that are sensible to include and we can fill up with instances. I don't know how many canon Human-Near-human hybrids there are, but I assume if there were more than two or three, we would have created a category for it already. - TopAce (Talk) 11:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we overhaul this system?Edit

"All Near-Humans shared close external similarities to Humans, usually with small differences in skin and eye color or bone structure. Biologically, many Near-Humans were capable of interbreeding with baseline Humans." This is not a very good method of deciding what a near-human, owing to the fact that by this definition, Lando is a "Near-Human". Baseline humans come in all sorts of different eye and skin color and bone structure, you know. Thus I find it really hard to believe in some of these classifications as anything other than ill-informed. Because if it looks exactly like a human, acts exactly like a human, breeds with humans and has a name that reflects the planet it's found on, it just might be a human from that world (after all, Corellians aren't "Near-Human", they're humans from Corellia. Wow, I'm so glad we have a system that isn't prone to confusion!). With that said, please tell me why the following are not considered genetically baseline human (or why they're considered Near-Human at all):

  • Borneck
  • Bpfasshi
  • Brosin
  • Enu
  • Gamandar (race)
    • Not entirely sure if this is conclusive, since Vader refers to them as the "populace of Gamanadar", though they are being enslaved by the Empire. But then again, it's entirely possible for them to be just humans enslaved by the Empire.--LightWarden 09:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Gorezh ("eyes at a curious slant"... really interesting choice of words there)
    • In fact, I'm thinking this one is biologically human. The exact line was in regards to disguising Luke Skywalker. "But with darkened hair and skin, an artificial beard, a Gorezh-style slant added to the outer corners of his eyes, and a pair of scars slicing across one cheek, he should be able to pass completely unrecognized." Sounds like an ethnic description to me.--LightWarden 09:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ierian
    • No indication that they're anything other than human. Just refers to the people of Ieria, which makes me think that this is the same thing as with the Naboo and Corellians. --LightWarden 09:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nish
  • Keed
  • Kiffar
  • Morellian
  • Pyn'gani
  • Ragithian Human (they rigged the genetic lottery, but does it make them that different from humans? Clone Troopers were specifically made to be genetically ahead of the curve, but I don't see anyone arguing that they weren't human)
  • Reussi
  • Ropagu
  • Ruusanian
  • Torine
  • Venan
    • Fairly certain that they're human as well. There's no indicator that the Baroness is anything other than a fair-skinned human, perhaps one who likes embellishing it with cosmetics. The citizens of Vena are never once referred to as near-human.--LightWarden 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I went through the list, examining each species, and trying to figure out if there was potential for confusion. If the "species" was obviously different from a baseline human (such as if it had blue skin) or if its name was different than the name of the planet it was found on, I let it be, since it was clearly not quite human or someone had taken the time to point out that this was certainly a different species. If the name matched the homeworld and the appearance was within the parameters of of "people you can find on Earth", I flagged it on the list above. --LightWarden 06:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, why do we have so many blue-skinned near-human species? There's like twelve of them. --LightWarden 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • What makes something a Near-Human is that the source material for it calls it such. If you find an article where this is not the case, feel free to fix it, but most of these are indeed called Near-Human by the sources. jSarek 07:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't have access to the WEG source material, but I'm wondering if they specifically stated the words "Near-Human" or just put the name of the species that just so happens to be derived from the planet they live on. Because if that's the case, we have some verification to do, because then there's the confusion between the name as a marker of a colonist and the name as a marker of a species, which is why I've flagged the "species" listed above.--LightWarden 08:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Near-Humans and HumanocentrismEdit

Does humanocentrism apply to near humans? Especially to near-humans like the Echani, the Miralukans, the Sephi, and others who are visually almost indistinct from "pure" humans? Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • In at least one case, it seems that way. Danetta Pitta, an Imperial Grand Admiral, tried to hide his Etti and Borneck ancestry. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Also from Lobar Aybock, a Calian: "The Imps taught me a saying; 'near human, not near enough." --Eyrezer 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It works both ways--Thrawn, as a near-human, was looked down upon by baseline human Imperials; on the other hand, Firrerreos, as near-humans, were human enough that Hethrir's example could convince Lusa to join the Diversity Alliance. They get prejudice from wither end of the spectrum!JustinGann 06:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If somebody wants to continue my noble work...Edit

...this needs to be cleaned up, as do all the pages and categories for all the species I just removed. Cheers, Gonk (Gonk!) 17:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Chalactans are not includedEdit

The Chalactan near human species mayhaps should be included in the Near Human list. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • Perhaps, but we don't need to list every single Near-Human species in this article (that's what the Category:Human and Near-Human species is for.) If they were removed, it may be because a source specifically describing them as Near-Human hadn't been listed. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Aren't they near human, too? Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • No, most of them are regular humans. The original ancient Mandalorians, aka the Taung species, have been described as Near-Human, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Aren't the Korunnai "near human"? Because they differ from humans in having the ability of using the force. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

Tuskens and othersEdit

Despite their genetic incompatibility shouldn't the similarities between the Tuskens or Ghorfas, Yuuzhan Vong, and Jawas also be noted somewhere?

I think that they need at least some kind of mention, like how the Humans, Tuskens, and Jawas may have a shared ancestor or how the Vong are exceedingly similar(They seem to beable to have trans-species transplants with one another, like A'sharad's right arm.) to humans but there are key differences, like the fact that they are from different galaxies all together. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).


What happened to the list of Near-Humans? I just got to the page and all of a sudden there is no list and the section it was under is now only a single paragraph without a list of the other Near-Humans not previously mentioned. --Jax Vos 04:58, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Togrutas Edit

Hello, there is a remark I did. Why aren't Togrutas listed as Near-Humans? Magueye555 (talk) 18:54, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+