" shoot stands vertical and dessicated" It's "desiccated", like "deflate".
Generally, plants with less water in them droop. That's why thirsty houseplants droop. You'd either have to elaborate on the mechanism here or change the description.

This is very far outside work-in-progress rules, and you don't seem to have added onto it in more than a month. I recommend either rejecting it immediately, or rejecting it if it has not been substantially added to by today.

@kopout, this organism's approval is still pending. A response is needed to proceed.

"Lookdowns":
This is used in the same way a great white shark would be referred to as a "great white", right? This is a little unusual, grammatically speaking. As an example, red foxes are surely not commonly referred to as "reds", or post oaks as "posts". If you're not going to revise the reference, I recommend making a note in the submission of the somewhat unusual grammar, such as a trivia point on the bottom.

"wing was often being torn" Wing was often.
"lamarck, mostly": capitalization error.
I still recommend adding more explanation over the mechanism of deleting a wing finger. With my fairly advanced knowledge of the genetic underpinnings of evolutionary change, I understand it's not that drastic, but it does look drastic by a cursory browse, and I don't want future members with less knowledge on gene deletion to be confused.

The word "description" should be omitted.
"Polar Spade-Leafs": That should probably be "Polar Spade-Leaves".
Unless the creator specifies otherwise (such as for "deer", "sheep", and "moose", or "geese" or "mice"), general English grammar rules can be applied to the plural of an organism name.
"large number Pink Phlyers": "large number of Pink Phlyers".
Although "population" refers to a lot of organisms, I get the feeling that "its" would be more appropriate. Consider: "The U.S. population has stated its opinion" relative to "the citizens of the United States have stated their opinion."


I wonder...by what standard of decay does something fall into the "detritus" category? If something is overripe, but not mere sludge, does that count as "detritus"?

"More striking": This sentence needs to be revised.
"Similarly though": This sentence needs to be revised: I suggest a comma.
"their mate": This is a pluralization error.
"birth two": "Give birth to two"
"Tundra": This should not be capitalized.


This is an important detail: this species lives in a high-latitude cold environment, but it has large skin-wings, no pelage, very large wings for its body size, and a small body size. Some accommodations need to be made within some combination of design, habitat, migratory patterns, or use of shelter.


I'll have to get back to this later.

Please don't put profanity in the thread title.

Judging by the Ivy Thermoworm, is it the case that it collects food for its courtship cache whole, or doesn't rip it up much?

I recommend adding the 60% bit to the description.

Yes, a rift valley is too large and geologically significant. A small slot canyon (perhaps modeled after Antelope Canyon the U.S.) or a cenote may be more suitable as sunlit smaller-scale dips in altitude in the broader landscape. You'll have to discard this.

The first paragraph is just one sentence, so it's better to merge it with the second paragraph.

There's a conspicuous spacing gap between Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 which should be removed.

How does it know a tree has many branches? It's unclear if it can see, much less see with sufficient resolution for that. Does it make an "inference" that a tree has branches based on wind flow patterns across its colony-body once it's sufficiently high up on a tree? Does it have to crawl over the crook of branches to make an "inference"?

I recommend merging Paragraphs 2 and 3, since they are both about its hunting methods, and so logically flow from each other. They're short paragraphs, too.

"engulfing": Engulfs.

There are a few stray lines and uncolored parts, but those aren't too conspicuous, so you don't actually need to fix them.

I like the colorful art, its color scheme, and its distinctive face.

It's fine for the color to stray outside the lines for submissions, of course, but this example in particular has many such instances of color outside the lines. It's especially conspicuous on the chest and back, specifically above and to the right of the hips. I recommend reducing the amount of color bleed over the lines.

In the event your particular technique means color bleed-over is likely, I recommend darkening the lineart, such as through the Levels option on GIMP*, using the magic wand tool to select the inside of the lineart, using the paint bucket to fill in the main color, and using a paintbrush to fill in colors afterward.

I figure gray line on the tail indicates a fold or crease of the body, but that shouldn't be visible through such thick pelage.


((*Yes, I know, GIMP is more suitable for photomanipulations. I'm not yet familiar with using other, more suitable programs.)

"it's ancestor": "its ancestor".

"fur-like wooly": "fur-like wool". Howevre, unless "wool" just customarily refers to the pelage of a particular plent lineage now, regardless of its texture, "hair" would be more appropriate. If you wanted to acknowledge the texture change, but still mark it as distinct and conceptually similar, you might be able to say "plent mohair" or "plent cashmere".

There's no need to put "shrogs" in quotes. It seems it's a common term, rather than a casual abbreviation based on naming patterns.
"sneaking into": "sneak into".
"feeding from": "feed from".
"to replace": I suggest "which replaces the material of its fangs, allowing it to cut food and deliver nasty bites."
"designed": This is, in-universe, a natural creature. "and close sideways to cut" is the simplest solution.
"shock while not lethal": "Shock, while not lethal".
"nasty surprise. Giving": "nasty surprise, giving them".
"like most Plents": I don't think "plent" is typically capitalized, even if individual plent species' names are.

"and/or den": "and/or as a den".

I like the coloring, texturing, and patterns painted on. There's a pretty conspicuous stray line on the left side of last four segments. Should I assume that's simply a scar from bumping up against Fermiblades? It seems plausible that this would be common, as the description makes a note of that being a sort of occupational hazard for the species.

I noticed it's spelled "Leafkutter". Is it simply because "k" is a fiercer sort of letter, to fit a bigger, bolder fauna?

"their ecosystem": Its ecosystem.

Fermi Giant Leafkutters eat the seeds as a nutrient boost, but most of the seeds remain intact through the digestive tract. Is "most" on the smaller end of that numerical description (e.g., 57%, not 75%), or are they simply so nutritious or full of useful specific nutrients per-unit that it still makes sense to eat them, even if most pass through unchanged?

"to better aid" suggests direction. I suggest, "which better helps with digging, as well as supporting their larger bodies."
"to ensure": "which ensures".

"spores casing"
Spore casings (with "spore" in the singular). Strictly speaking, "capsules", "packets", or even "cases" would be a better word. I figured the spore packets of bird's nest fungi would be the best comparison for structures that were specifically loaded with spores, rather than seeds that rattled around inside something else.

Keep in mind that spores aren't simply seeds. They are much smaller. 100 micrometers is apparently on the larger end for a fern spore, and that's 0.1 millimeters. Meanwhile, a quick check suggests the ]smallest plant seed is 0.05 mm, which is five times bigger.

Therefore, you'd have to specify it's the packets that are as big as a mustard seed (1 mm), not the spores themselves.

The shoot doesn't necessarily need to detach once nutrients are depleted. When grass or other spreading plants like strawberries colonize new spots, they don't necessarily discard the part of itself in the previous spot, even if it depleted nutrients there. Why would they? The new growth can send nutrients to the old growth, and the old growth can continue to photosynthesize. I figure you have it discard shoots rapidly as it grows underground to suggest the plant is (over long time scales) not simply growing but "marching" to more fertile areas. A compromise is making the organism as a whole perennial, but the individual shoots annuals, and unusually short-lived annuals at that. (e.g., dying half a month before most other large flora in its environment dies or goes dormant) As the shoots die, the nutrients would be redistributed to the tuber, and the shoot becomes so dried-up and fragile as to very easily detach, even in a moderately-strong breeze. On a year-by-year basis, it would appear to "march" in a particular direction.

It doesn't make sense for the shoot to detach if it gets eaten, unless its defense mechanism is, in fact, lodging in a would-be predator's mouth, and detaching most of the shoot makes this defense more effective.

For future flora submissions, I recommend starting with a concept that's less ambitious or alien, so you can practice non-conceptual aspects of organism submissions. You could adapt an obscure real-life plant, for example, or try to merge multiple real-life plants with similar niches into one concept. To learn about interesting plants, I recommend the online resource Wayne's Word, (excuse the circa 2004-esque look), or David Attenborough's The Private Life of Plants. Conveniently, The Private Life of Plants is available to digitally borrow on the Internet Archive.

P.S. Remember: put the quote you're responding to at the top, not the bottom. That reminds people of what, exactly, you are responding to before you respond to it.

Strictly speaking, it is better to use "six months" rather than "6 months". There are also some un-capitalized instances of "flesh fairy" in the first paragraph. Other than those minor issues, it looks ready for approval.

"occasional cannibal"
This is better as "occasional cannibalism".
(Wood, chitin) should be "Wood, Chitin", given capitalization customs.
"echolocation level": Echolocation-level.
"micro lungs": Personally, I recommend "micro-lungs" or "microlungs".
"feeding on the plants": There are no plants (Kingdom Plantae) on Sagan 4, so you mean "flora".
"most of the flesh fairies" This hasn't been capitalized yet.
" prey being" Prey, being.
"Flesh fairies cross paths." That's a capitalization error.
"acceptable plant": "flora" is needed.
"larva first": Larvae's first.

I'm not sure if a hydraulic mechanism in a flora physiologically comparable to an Earth plant can explain both standing up and shaking back and forth (presumably rapidly, for it to work as a noise deterrent). You could, however, say it causes the shoot to spring up, loudly rattling around spore packets in its quills, and then initiates (very slow) side-to-side motions. Remember: spores are very small, which might make it difficult for it to make a sufficiently strong and reliably-activating noise if shook just once.

It's odd that the shoot would detach immediately after the defense mechanism is activated just once. It seems a poor use of the flora's resources, unless only an overmature shoot full of mature spores can do this. Even that, though, is puzzling, unless the shoot is near-dead at that point and keeping it attached to the tuber would foster infection.

"a prostrate spurge" would sound more normal. On the wiki, since this is a reference to a somewhat obscure plant*, there would be a Wikipedia link, but you don't have to do that.


*It's actually a common weed distributed through most of the U.S., as well as parts of Canada. I presume it is "obscure" simply becauseAmericans are bad at identifying common local plants. (I have no clue about the statistics for Australia and other locations for Sagan 4 members.)

P.S. When quoting people, put the quote on the top of your reply, not the bottom.

I recommend omitting the narrativization entirely. You can, however, be oddly specific about the examples of circumstances where each body function is used. To distinguish this from what you're doing now, I recommend placing the physiological description first in the sentence, and the broad example afterward. You can also provide specific details of organism preferences, such as favorite foods (for the species as a whole, or even differing favorite foods among individuals) and quirky behaviors. These would, in a sense, "humanize" the organism by making it easy to imagine individuals of the species in particular scenarios.

In addition, you can use somewhat dramatic phrasing of scientific facts.
For example:

Plain: "Nixies are a crepescular species."
Elaborated: "Being vulnerable to desiccating sunlight, but having poor night vision, Nixies are crepescular."
Dramatic: "Individuals are typically crepescular, as those that venture out in the heat of the day dry up and die, and those that venture out at night are all but blind in the darkness, making them easy prey for predators."

What a strange, friendly-looking creature.

"it's population" is a typo, and hasn't been fixed yet.

"spreading to" "It spread to".

"since they" The grammar doesn't quite match up, unless it's referring to the wings themselves. However, I'm not sure if it can be said that wings themselves soar.
"soar all day," should be "soar all day:".
"ground feeding": "Ground, feeding." Try reading the description aloud to get a feel for the right punctuation.

"their entire body" is a plural possessive error.

To make this easier for HethrJarrod: it's ectothermic (its body depends on that of its surroundings).

A fairly quick check on the longest (by non-wingspan measures) flying birds in the world suggests 2 m is very large. Admittedly, Argentavis, the heaviest known (if extinct) flying bird, was about 3.5 m in length, which counts its tail feathers. Still, with its claws, snout, teeth, and tail, this probably weighs more than an Argentavis. Quetzalcoatlus is bigger, but apparently there's been debate about whether and how it could fly, which is affected by weight estimates. That brings up the same issue.

Unfortunately, I will have to return later to this matter.

Are theose hairs or stray lines arund the main body? While stray lines in art are permissible, those are rather conspicuous.

The scientific name should follow the common name on the same line.

You needn't mark out new additions to your description. It's distracting.

When I have multiple sentences that don't share a theme, I put them in a miscellaneous paragraph. I recommend you do that here.

There's apparently a typo on the species name, judging by how the name in the description and template differ from each other.

Jarlaxle, please don't use profanity. It may not be directed at anyone in particular, but that's a rather strong word to be using.

This kind of blended narrativization doesn't work well as either a description or a narrative. As an educational narrative, it's clunky, and as a description, it has a bizarre over-emphasis on one individual.

It would be best to remove the "Johnnyheard" reference on the title description entirely, even though that won't last as long as the organism name itself.

Do excuse my lack of knowledge on the marking: as I might have mentioned before, I haven't had much time lately, so my feedback on submissions has been more cursory than usual.
Regardless, it is still more standard to put the Generation number at an additional spot.

The wavy feather pattern expressed does convey a feathered body better.

It's good to see the art improved.

I think I've pointed this out multiple times: you have to align the template at the top with the order and spacing customs of the standard template. If you're having trouble keeping all the feedback in your head or referring to it while revising the submission, you can write it down in a checklist and work on bits and pieces of it over time.

"the reaction is cause by" The reaction is caused by. You'll need to elaborate on how such a conspicuous reaction can occur. The easiest thing to do is to downplay it by having the fauna unwittingly activate a hydraulic mechanism that causes noise: perhaps by dislodging and rattling little pieces of dried tissue inside its stem or in small structures hidden by its quills.

Remember, Quillfences don't have petals: it would be odd if they did, as they reproduce asexually. If you want to give the Moleroot in particular some flowering structures, and therefore petals, you can still do so, but I figure you just made a terminology mistake.

"another area ." There's a spacing error.

The description is on the short side. Given that, and the fact some paragraphs are only a single sentence, I recommend merging the description into two paragraphs. (The Moleroot[...]the next" and "When the Moleroot[...]scatter spores into the air".

"slowly move on": As it's a flora, it can't move much. A better word is: 'direct its growth to the next source'.

When you say, "the shoot rests on the ground", do you mean to say it naturally has a sprawling habit, like a prostrate spurge, and its shoots only flick up as a defense mechanism?