The description is very small. Can you elaborate on them? You could talk about the sorts of things it likes to hide under, whether it's diurnal or nocturnal, any soil preferences for egg-laying, or the particular predators it has, and how effective its defenses are against each. You could also talk about what kind of detritus it likes most: well-rotted carcasses, logs, leaves, or flowers, perhaps. Does it hiss just once, or repeatedly if disturbed?
In retrospect, I'm surprised kruggs have specified cloacal segments, and not spiracles.
There's a comma after "South Darwin Subtropical Woodland".
In retrospect, I'm surprised kruggs have specified cloacal segments, and not spiracles.
There's a comma after "South Darwin Subtropical Woodland".
"com down": Come down.
"air plants": You can always use the specific term, "Tillandsia", to avoid using quotation marks.
"rats nest": "rats' nest". However, I recommend not using animal-based figures of speech. "A tangled mess" would work.
"it's ancestor could": Its ancestor could.
How has its vascular system improved?
Macroscopic binary fission is quite odd. It's hard to find examples of this in eukaryotes, although some Sagan 4 organisms, by whole-planet ecological necessity, imitate prokaryotes. Would "asexual fragmentation" work better?
Are there real-life examples of organisms whose spores spread in the troposphere and only grow in a handful of specific habitats? While a quick check suggests spores, pollen and bacteria can indeed spread widely in the atmosphere, I'm not sure whether a tiny habitat-specific flora is compatible with what's known about the phenomenon.
"air plants": You can always use the specific term, "Tillandsia", to avoid using quotation marks.
"rats nest": "rats' nest". However, I recommend not using animal-based figures of speech. "A tangled mess" would work.
"it's ancestor could": Its ancestor could.
How has its vascular system improved?
Macroscopic binary fission is quite odd. It's hard to find examples of this in eukaryotes, although some Sagan 4 organisms, by whole-planet ecological necessity, imitate prokaryotes. Would "asexual fragmentation" work better?
Are there real-life examples of organisms whose spores spread in the troposphere and only grow in a handful of specific habitats? While a quick check suggests spores, pollen and bacteria can indeed spread widely in the atmosphere, I'm not sure whether a tiny habitat-specific flora is compatible with what's known about the phenomenon.
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Sep 6 2022, 10:00 PM) |
| The hairs were seemingly meant to be small. You wouldn't depict a gecko's hairs in a drawing. |
It's true, but it would warrant a mention. This is especially so when the default is hairlessness: aquatic animals are generally hairless, and real-life animal lineages which had much more hair than the Arboreal Limbless lose virtually all their hair in purely-aquatic descendants (e.g., dolphins).
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Sep 6 2022, 09:02 PM) |
| Actually, it's been determined that the hairs are still there. No mention doesn't mean lost. |
I can reasonably assume as much: there's been neither mention nor depiction of hair in the art. I checked. If a retcon is being made, it should be on the wiki. I even checked the overview page once you made this response, and there's no mention there, either. One line in the overview even strongly suggests the lineage is hairless: "Their skin is extremely streamlined, being very smooth in texture, and covers a layer of blubber that provides warmth."
Pfft. Hahaha.
This is absurd.
Does it still have internal ear structures? I don't think it can hear entirely through a layer of fat. A quick Internet search suggests dolphins hear using acoustic windows in their lower jaws, not purely through the "melon" organ of fat in their foreheads.
This is absurd.
Does it still have internal ear structures? I don't think it can hear entirely through a layer of fat. A quick Internet search suggests dolphins hear using acoustic windows in their lower jaws, not purely through the "melon" organ of fat in their foreheads.
The art is very pleasant. I like the texturing and gradation, and the tiny detail of the hairs.
The warm water of the tropics generally make them less productive than cold waters. That's why the water is so clear: it has relatively little life in it. Of course, if there are upwellings or favorable currents, that changes things. The geography of Fly Tropical Coast and a narrow cut of Hydro Tropical Coast north of Mancer Sea Caves would lend itself well to estuaries (bays, lagoons, mudflats, etc.) which are highly productive. Realistically, there would be more, but these are the biggest spots. I suppose the estuaries can be ecologically equated with Mangal habitats, for simplicity's sake. While the oxygen capacity of water by temperature would be the same, it is possible that the variety of photosynthesizers of different photosynthetic pigments on Sagan 4 could make its habitats more productive. Earth's seas do have multiple kinds of plants absorbing different wavelengths of light (green, brown, and red algae), but Sagan 4 has even more. In any case, the subtropics would probably be more productive than the tropics, since the subtropics still have winters, even if they're shorter and milder than in temperate areas.
The hairs originate in the Arboreal Limbless, which is certainly farther along than its ancestor's ancestor. Descriptions suggest no trace of retaining a little bit of hair elsewhere. Those hairs would have to be "re-evolved", like how the panda's distant ancestors had more than five fingers, and pandas had to come up with a thumb by adapting a wrist bone. Admittedly, hair is probably easier to evolve than a pseudo-thumb.
"Barlowe island": I'm not sure if the official name is "Barlowe Island", so the easiest solution is "island of Barlowe" or "island continent of Barlowe".
"Oils"? Are there multiple kinds of oils?
"Once a mating has occurred[...]This sentence is too long, and needs a comma.
"close kin, has" This doesn't flow right. I recommend removing the comma.
Technically, the hyphens around "a specialized fang" should be emdashes. An easier solution is using parentheses.
The warm water of the tropics generally make them less productive than cold waters. That's why the water is so clear: it has relatively little life in it. Of course, if there are upwellings or favorable currents, that changes things. The geography of Fly Tropical Coast and a narrow cut of Hydro Tropical Coast north of Mancer Sea Caves would lend itself well to estuaries (bays, lagoons, mudflats, etc.) which are highly productive. Realistically, there would be more, but these are the biggest spots. I suppose the estuaries can be ecologically equated with Mangal habitats, for simplicity's sake. While the oxygen capacity of water by temperature would be the same, it is possible that the variety of photosynthesizers of different photosynthetic pigments on Sagan 4 could make its habitats more productive. Earth's seas do have multiple kinds of plants absorbing different wavelengths of light (green, brown, and red algae), but Sagan 4 has even more. In any case, the subtropics would probably be more productive than the tropics, since the subtropics still have winters, even if they're shorter and milder than in temperate areas.
The hairs originate in the Arboreal Limbless, which is certainly farther along than its ancestor's ancestor. Descriptions suggest no trace of retaining a little bit of hair elsewhere. Those hairs would have to be "re-evolved", like how the panda's distant ancestors had more than five fingers, and pandas had to come up with a thumb by adapting a wrist bone. Admittedly, hair is probably easier to evolve than a pseudo-thumb.
"Barlowe island": I'm not sure if the official name is "Barlowe Island", so the easiest solution is "island of Barlowe" or "island continent of Barlowe".
"Oils"? Are there multiple kinds of oils?
"Once a mating has occurred[...]This sentence is too long, and needs a comma.
"close kin, has" This doesn't flow right. I recommend removing the comma.
Technically, the hyphens around "a specialized fang" should be emdashes. An easier solution is using parentheses.
"While water is expelled from the gut, villi in the back of the throat intake it through tiny holes, inflating and blocking most prey from escaping." The expelled water used in food intake is the same water that inflates the villi? I'm assuming a pretty large volume of water is involved, so that would probably require some kind of shunting system, and probably large channels, sacs, and sphincters. The easiest solution would be to direct water in, clench up the stomach or close a throat-sphincter to seal the exit, use peristalsis to move food into the gut or stomach outpocket where most of the food is trapped, have some kind of cilia or tiny sac system near the mouth suck in a portion of water in the stomach to inflate the villi, and then unclenching and "sneezing" out excess water, with any large particles not caught in the mucus of the gut getting caught in the throat-villi, and perhaps pushed back in for a second attempt the next time it feeds, unless it has some other mechanism to digest them, like slightly acidic mucus on the villi themselves.
Whether it needs a large, dedicated villi-inflation system or just a small, barely-detectable system depends on how much water it takes in, how much the villi inflate, and the size of the throat aperture. Judging by the picture from the front, it's hard to tell if it has a particular mouth/throat constriction that funnels food into an esophagus. A diagram would probably help.
The easiest solution that can plausibly be done in one step and doesn't require obscure mucus-mesh dynamics is just increasing the particle size to the macro level (1 mm minimum). This would allow it to capture Orangemosses, Redmosses, Sudisflutanses, Testudiatoms, and Sanguine O'Spheres, which all have members in the 1 mm-1 cm size range. It might also capture the young of other kinds of organisms, of course.
I'm actually unsure how big the villi would be. I think I'm imagining them as bigger than they actually are, to match a throat that isn't very narrow. I'm actually not sure whether these should be villi or papillae (like the bumps on the tongue). In any case, as villi do have substantial blood vessels, villi would surely be best for oxygenation.
Whether it needs a large, dedicated villi-inflation system or just a small, barely-detectable system depends on how much water it takes in, how much the villi inflate, and the size of the throat aperture. Judging by the picture from the front, it's hard to tell if it has a particular mouth/throat constriction that funnels food into an esophagus. A diagram would probably help.
The easiest solution that can plausibly be done in one step and doesn't require obscure mucus-mesh dynamics is just increasing the particle size to the macro level (1 mm minimum). This would allow it to capture Orangemosses, Redmosses, Sudisflutanses, Testudiatoms, and Sanguine O'Spheres, which all have members in the 1 mm-1 cm size range. It might also capture the young of other kinds of organisms, of course.
I'm actually unsure how big the villi would be. I think I'm imagining them as bigger than they actually are, to match a throat that isn't very narrow. I'm actually not sure whether these should be villi or papillae (like the bumps on the tongue). In any case, as villi do have substantial blood vessels, villi would surely be best for oxygenation.
The image is now missing. It just says, "user posted image". Were you making image edits?
While it's not out of the question you could submit a tiny, local genus, even for that, I recommend gaining more experience in single-species entries first. Genus groups are under more scrutiny now, and are likely to require more information on physiology and ecology than a single species entry. You can always submit this as a singular species, make a bunch of descendants for it, and then, once you've gained experience, make a genus-group descendant.
Brushrums crawl around on the seafloor. It's ambiguous what the typical range is for photosynthetic species, but it's likely somewhere between 50 m-200 m. It's a pretty big jump for a species with no conveniently "pre-adapted" support structure (e.g., like a crustacean moving onto land), to go immediately from crawling on the seafloor to climbing high above the water line. You didn't specify how far up it goes, but if there's actually a need to flap its leaves to slow its descent, it's surely pretty high up. It would help to clarify how far it climbs up a tree. It would help to research tide pool animals, and perhaps mudskippers, since they are both tide-dependent aquatic organisms and can climb trees.
Brushrums crawl around on the seafloor. It's ambiguous what the typical range is for photosynthetic species, but it's likely somewhere between 50 m-200 m. It's a pretty big jump for a species with no conveniently "pre-adapted" support structure (e.g., like a crustacean moving onto land), to go immediately from crawling on the seafloor to climbing high above the water line. You didn't specify how far up it goes, but if there's actually a need to flap its leaves to slow its descent, it's surely pretty high up. It would help to clarify how far it climbs up a tree. It would help to research tide pool animals, and perhaps mudskippers, since they are both tide-dependent aquatic organisms and can climb trees.
More Useful Terms:
I'm surprised Phyler/Phlyer isn't here. It includes the Lari Phlyer, Snapperbeak Hookphlyer, Stonebeak Phlyer, Courier Phlyer, Sky Phlyer, etc. There are more than 200 results by using Ctrl + F and "Phlyer" on the ecosystem page, suggesting they are at least very widespread.
"Gallery" could be useful, as a subtype of supplemental image: fanart added to an organism page after the creator has submitted it. (e.g., OviraptorFan's nodent art)
Scuttlers are fairly biodiverse. There's a Scuttlers genus group, and a few non-genus scuttler species persist, like Hammerhead Scuttlers/hammerheads and Snapper Scuttlers. Bizarrely, the Hammerhead Scuttler is listed as extant on the wiki, but doesn't show up on the ecosystem page using the Ctrl + F "Scuttler" combination. The Scuttlers genus group itself has two descendants, too.
"Cryoflora" could be useful as a synonym to some other term: it only appears in three entries.
"Smoolk" could be added for completionism's sake, although all of Mason's life went extinct, and so they are rarely discussed now. The Smoolk lineage did become widespread enough for a genus group, and there are ten submissions that can be called smoolks. An overview page, at least, may be warranted.
I think I use the term "blackflora", as one word. (e.g., the descriptions of the Ephemeral Sapworm, Billdeka, Gentonna, Sayront, Cryocracker, and Twigdorse; Jlind11 used "blackflora" for the Twinkgreeus).
A handful of submissions use the word "bora" to refer to organisms that live on the Fuzzbora (or its descendant).
Less Useful:
Some organism linages tend to use the same prefix or suffix: "tams" as in "tamow descendants", for example. This could be used to inspire common names, although I'm not sure how many actually use this.
For example, many descendants of the Cottoncoat have the suffix "-coat", although they don't seem to be refered to as "coats" for short. That some such fauna are given the name "-coat" for things that have nothing to do with their pelage (.g., "Fisticoat") further confirms that it's read as a suffix for the lineage. "Coat plent" could be a compromise, as a nod to the naming convention. A quick check suggests that at least most of them are in the suborder Gossypopelta.
Compared to "Nodent" or "plent", using "dundi" is rare. ("Dundis" has three results on the wiki, including the Nodent page.) If I ever release some new dundi ideas (I have three partial descriptions) it might be useful.
I don't think "Fermisaur" has ever gotten on the wiki, but I may have informally used it once or twice. It can probably be considered equivalent to "thornback", anyway.
Arguably, all descendants of the Snoa can be called snoas, although it seems only the miraculously-alive Mostly Purple Snoa still uses that name. Dohves (descendants of the Jaydohve) may be useful, although it's a pretty small group, and in any case, it doesn't seem the word "dohve" is used on its own.
Typos:
"discord server": should be capitalized as "Discord".
"the life-bearing planet" is a little ambiguous. It can be equated with "bear fruit" or "bear a child". Last time I checked, Protosagania didn't emerge from the muck on Sagan 4, but was seeded there by Nauceans, unless that is now non-canon. "the planet filled with life" would be better.
"3 different attempts": three different attempts.
---
https://www.tumblr.com/blog/view/uncharisma...56?source=share
I'm surprised Phyler/Phlyer isn't here. It includes the Lari Phlyer, Snapperbeak Hookphlyer, Stonebeak Phlyer, Courier Phlyer, Sky Phlyer, etc. There are more than 200 results by using Ctrl + F and "Phlyer" on the ecosystem page, suggesting they are at least very widespread.
"Gallery" could be useful, as a subtype of supplemental image: fanart added to an organism page after the creator has submitted it. (e.g., OviraptorFan's nodent art)
Scuttlers are fairly biodiverse. There's a Scuttlers genus group, and a few non-genus scuttler species persist, like Hammerhead Scuttlers/hammerheads and Snapper Scuttlers. Bizarrely, the Hammerhead Scuttler is listed as extant on the wiki, but doesn't show up on the ecosystem page using the Ctrl + F "Scuttler" combination. The Scuttlers genus group itself has two descendants, too.
"Cryoflora" could be useful as a synonym to some other term: it only appears in three entries.
"Smoolk" could be added for completionism's sake, although all of Mason's life went extinct, and so they are rarely discussed now. The Smoolk lineage did become widespread enough for a genus group, and there are ten submissions that can be called smoolks. An overview page, at least, may be warranted.
I think I use the term "blackflora", as one word. (e.g., the descriptions of the Ephemeral Sapworm, Billdeka, Gentonna, Sayront, Cryocracker, and Twigdorse; Jlind11 used "blackflora" for the Twinkgreeus).
A handful of submissions use the word "bora" to refer to organisms that live on the Fuzzbora (or its descendant).
Less Useful:
Some organism linages tend to use the same prefix or suffix: "tams" as in "tamow descendants", for example. This could be used to inspire common names, although I'm not sure how many actually use this.
For example, many descendants of the Cottoncoat have the suffix "-coat", although they don't seem to be refered to as "coats" for short. That some such fauna are given the name "-coat" for things that have nothing to do with their pelage (.g., "Fisticoat") further confirms that it's read as a suffix for the lineage. "Coat plent" could be a compromise, as a nod to the naming convention. A quick check suggests that at least most of them are in the suborder Gossypopelta.
Compared to "Nodent" or "plent", using "dundi" is rare. ("Dundis" has three results on the wiki, including the Nodent page.) If I ever release some new dundi ideas (I have three partial descriptions) it might be useful.
I don't think "Fermisaur" has ever gotten on the wiki, but I may have informally used it once or twice. It can probably be considered equivalent to "thornback", anyway.
Arguably, all descendants of the Snoa can be called snoas, although it seems only the miraculously-alive Mostly Purple Snoa still uses that name. Dohves (descendants of the Jaydohve) may be useful, although it's a pretty small group, and in any case, it doesn't seem the word "dohve" is used on its own.
Typos:
"discord server": should be capitalized as "Discord".
"the life-bearing planet" is a little ambiguous. It can be equated with "bear fruit" or "bear a child". Last time I checked, Protosagania didn't emerge from the muck on Sagan 4, but was seeded there by Nauceans, unless that is now non-canon. "the planet filled with life" would be better.
"3 different attempts": three different attempts.
---
https://www.tumblr.com/blog/view/uncharisma...56?source=share
"intake more":Take in.
"Seannivvers[...]its mouth": Pronoun confusion.
"it partially": "it" refers to "Seannivers" in the previous sentence, which is in the plural. It is best to fix "Seannivers" to "a Seanniver".
"mouth of Seannivers": another pluralization error.
The "almost microscopic villi" would surely not filter out plankton, unless the entrance to its stomach, once compressed, is itself "almost microscopic". All of the plankton it eats are in a microscopic size range, too, so they would easily escape a macro-level entrance hole, or even a larger-microscopic entrance hole. Now, there are ways to capture very tiny plankton which are actually smaller than the gaps in a filtration system: mucus-mesh grazers like salps can do this. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966591/) Still, unless they have some kind of bug-catching net-esque apparatus within the stomach itself or some kind of retractable mechanism just outside the stomach entrance, this doesn't make sense, since its physiology is so different from mucus-mesh grazers. In any case, the bug-catching net mechanisms suggested would take more than one step to evolve. One solution is pushing the plankton into an outpocket of the stomach, or a gut, which is coated with sticky mucus, closing off the outpocket or gut with a tight gastrointestinal sphincter mechanism, and then, once most of the food is caught in the mucus, ejecting excess water through the exit. Alternatively, the front end of the stomach could be closed, the food could be caught in mucus, and the water pressed back via sudden clench into the gut, which has some kind of filtration mechanism (perhaps like baleen), and the ejected water goes towards the rear of the organism for a while before looping back around into the all-purpose esophagus-rectum. Merged loops are a big development, though.
The easiest solution is simply to increase either the size of the villi in the back of the throat as a filtration mechanism or increase the size of the particle range. You could probably have the villi in the back of the throat inflate with water or perhaps air, like balloons with air, to serve as filters when ejecting water. If you're using air, though, that requires either gulping air from the surface as needed and sucking it into miniature air sacs for the villi, having an air sac that can be filled with air from the surface that lasts a while, or generating oxygen gas from photosynthesis. The last one would probably be impractical from its known physiology, though.
"Seannivvers[...]its mouth": Pronoun confusion.
"it partially": "it" refers to "Seannivers" in the previous sentence, which is in the plural. It is best to fix "Seannivers" to "a Seanniver".
"mouth of Seannivers": another pluralization error.
The "almost microscopic villi" would surely not filter out plankton, unless the entrance to its stomach, once compressed, is itself "almost microscopic". All of the plankton it eats are in a microscopic size range, too, so they would easily escape a macro-level entrance hole, or even a larger-microscopic entrance hole. Now, there are ways to capture very tiny plankton which are actually smaller than the gaps in a filtration system: mucus-mesh grazers like salps can do this. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966591/) Still, unless they have some kind of bug-catching net-esque apparatus within the stomach itself or some kind of retractable mechanism just outside the stomach entrance, this doesn't make sense, since its physiology is so different from mucus-mesh grazers. In any case, the bug-catching net mechanisms suggested would take more than one step to evolve. One solution is pushing the plankton into an outpocket of the stomach, or a gut, which is coated with sticky mucus, closing off the outpocket or gut with a tight gastrointestinal sphincter mechanism, and then, once most of the food is caught in the mucus, ejecting excess water through the exit. Alternatively, the front end of the stomach could be closed, the food could be caught in mucus, and the water pressed back via sudden clench into the gut, which has some kind of filtration mechanism (perhaps like baleen), and the ejected water goes towards the rear of the organism for a while before looping back around into the all-purpose esophagus-rectum. Merged loops are a big development, though.
The easiest solution is simply to increase either the size of the villi in the back of the throat as a filtration mechanism or increase the size of the particle range. You could probably have the villi in the back of the throat inflate with water or perhaps air, like balloons with air, to serve as filters when ejecting water. If you're using air, though, that requires either gulping air from the surface as needed and sucking it into miniature air sacs for the villi, having an air sac that can be filled with air from the surface that lasts a while, or generating oxygen gas from photosynthesis. The last one would probably be impractical from its known physiology, though.
It will take me a while to get through a description this big, so here's just a quick check: you'll need to capitalize the things in the template (e.g., "Sexual, Spores", "Photosynthesis") and remove the gap between the organism name and the rest of the template. You'll also need to put the scientific name in parentheses. While the multiple pictures do help break up the text, I recommend splitting the text into sections anyway.
As I mentioned when this was a work in progress, "Dr. Pickle" won't work as an organism name, and calling it a "pickle" is not recommended. Physicians' Gherkin is a reasonably close compromise that sounds like a real plant name (e.g., "Shepherd's Purse", "St. John's wort") and not too close to a very specific kind of real-world plant. You can also look at the suggested names I gave in the work-in-progress.
Can you enhance the contrast for the supplemental pictures?
You should also make sure you fix the "it's/its" errors.
As I mentioned when this was a work in progress, "Dr. Pickle" won't work as an organism name, and calling it a "pickle" is not recommended. Physicians' Gherkin is a reasonably close compromise that sounds like a real plant name (e.g., "Shepherd's Purse", "St. John's wort") and not too close to a very specific kind of real-world plant. You can also look at the suggested names I gave in the work-in-progress.
Can you enhance the contrast for the supplemental pictures?
You should also make sure you fix the "it's/its" errors.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Aug 26 2022, 08:32 AM) |
| This is a very quick check. I'll have to go over the rest later. Can you increase the contrast or use the magic wand tool to erase the gray background? The gray background makes it less readable. I think the organism is supposed to be purplish, but due to the low twilight-esque contrast, it looks like a vaguely purplish gray. "it's ancestor" should be "its ancestor". |
It seems you forgot to address this, Colddigger.
It seems you haven't altered the organism's description. Is it customary for you to first acknowledge feedback, and then alter the description? If I recall correctly, members of Sagan4 usually first try to implement feedback and then acknowledge the feedback with a reply.
I think the Kingdom Master badge should be revised.
There are 44 kingdoms of life on Sagan 4 according to the kingdoms taxonomy page, including some that are probably extinct now, such as the kingdom Protobia. Given the sheer number of kingdoms relative to Earth (5 kingdoms, with 35 extant animal phyla, for comparison), I recommend splitting the badge into three steps, and perhaps limiting the "Kingdom God" (I recommend using "Deity" here), to 35 kingdoms, so it's impressive but allows people to skip some microbial lineages of uncertain biological plausibility.
If split as evenly as possible into three steps, with 44 kingdoms total, it would be: 14+15+15. With 35 kingdoms, it could be 11 + 12 + 12. Since the badges tend to go in groups of 5, though, one could round down to 40 and go with 10 - 20 - 40.
On a somewhat related note, it's nice to see the badges again. I certainly feel encouraged to work on those four groups I'm 3/5s finished on.
There are 44 kingdoms of life on Sagan 4 according to the kingdoms taxonomy page, including some that are probably extinct now, such as the kingdom Protobia. Given the sheer number of kingdoms relative to Earth (5 kingdoms, with 35 extant animal phyla, for comparison), I recommend splitting the badge into three steps, and perhaps limiting the "Kingdom God" (I recommend using "Deity" here), to 35 kingdoms, so it's impressive but allows people to skip some microbial lineages of uncertain biological plausibility.
If split as evenly as possible into three steps, with 44 kingdoms total, it would be: 14+15+15. With 35 kingdoms, it could be 11 + 12 + 12. Since the badges tend to go in groups of 5, though, one could round down to 40 and go with 10 - 20 - 40.
On a somewhat related note, it's nice to see the badges again. I certainly feel encouraged to work on those four groups I'm 3/5s finished on.
I qualify for the Diversifier badge due to the Red Smoolk:
Red Smoolk (made 8 descendants for it, all in Generation 154)
In case anyone's curious, a roughly 14-minute check suggests I'm 3/5 done for 4 other organisms:
Shellflora (3/5)
Grub Krugg (3/5)
Syrup Ferine (3/5)
Pioneer Quillprong (3/5)
Red Smoolk (made 8 descendants for it, all in Generation 154)
In case anyone's curious, a roughly 14-minute check suggests I'm 3/5 done for 4 other organisms:
Shellflora (3/5)
Grub Krugg (3/5)
Syrup Ferine (3/5)
Pioneer Quillprong (3/5)
Hahaha. Feed on Seashrogs. Feed! What joy: it has inspired a brief "Tyrannical Vonngona Seashrog-Eating Jingle". (If only I could convey audio here.)
On a more serious note, since it's customary to list food items in order of preference/volume in the overall diet, it would seem they have the greatest predation pressure on Sparkleshrogs. Perhaps that could cause interesting developments.
On my word processor, the description is two pages long. For something that big, I recommend splitting it into three or four sections.
"Overtime" This has occurred so frequently that I really must ask you to keep watch for this error before submitting your descriptions. If you make descriptions in a word processor, as I recommend, you might be able to mark "overtime" uniquely as an error. I've never used Grammarly for Sagan 4 before, but Grammarly did catch the "overtime" error and pronoun mismatches.
"crested": crest.
"ancestor although" This needs a comma between "ancestor" and "although".
"time since" This needs a comma in between the two words.
"consists of shrogs": Consisting of shrogs.
Grammarly caught several basic errors. As I'm using a free version of it, you could use it too without any cost. I recommend running the description through Grammarly to catch typos and pronoun mismatches and pasting it in the corrected version. Then I can provide a more thorough look without impulsively writing down grammar errors.
On a more serious note, since it's customary to list food items in order of preference/volume in the overall diet, it would seem they have the greatest predation pressure on Sparkleshrogs. Perhaps that could cause interesting developments.
On my word processor, the description is two pages long. For something that big, I recommend splitting it into three or four sections.
"Overtime" This has occurred so frequently that I really must ask you to keep watch for this error before submitting your descriptions. If you make descriptions in a word processor, as I recommend, you might be able to mark "overtime" uniquely as an error. I've never used Grammarly for Sagan 4 before, but Grammarly did catch the "overtime" error and pronoun mismatches.
"crested": crest.
"ancestor although" This needs a comma between "ancestor" and "although".
"time since" This needs a comma in between the two words.
"consists of shrogs": Consisting of shrogs.
Grammarly caught several basic errors. As I'm using a free version of it, you could use it too without any cost. I recommend running the description through Grammarly to catch typos and pronoun mismatches and pasting it in the corrected version. Then I can provide a more thorough look without impulsively writing down grammar errors.
The image is effective. Showing the other inividual (for I presume this is at least semi-naturalistic) from the front is helpful, for its anatomy could otherwise be easily misread. The gradient in the background is also pleasant.
It's kind of weird it could get this big without any gills, but it's still flat, has a mouth that's frequently open, and photosynthesizes, so it's sufficient. If you intend to make a bigger (say, 1 meter wide) or thicker-bodied descendant, it could be useful to elaborate on how it gets sufficient oxygenation. But, for now, elaborating on oxygenation is probably optional. If its intestine loops towards the front and has sphincters, it could plausibly breathe through ruffle structures within it while expelling water, or it could perhaps have villi in its mouth.
--
It has a very wide range of particles it can eat. I do not yet know what is a plausible maximum size range, but it seems so exceptional as to warrant special mention of how it is possible. The easiest solution for you is to look for a real-life comparable animal with a small-to-medium sort of size range and similar feeding technique. Since this doesn't have gill rakers and has a blind gut, I recommend looking up animals that similarly have blind guts and no gill rakers, such as some kinds of echinoderms. (https://www.deepseanews.com/2018/12/a-tale-of-one-opening/)
For comparison:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6157963/
"Manta rays are large elasmobranchs that feed by swimming with open mouths, capturing small zooplankton (51 to 100 μm), microcrustaceans (101 to 500 μm), and mesoplankton (>500 μm) while expelling seawater through the gill slits (11, 18)."
"Channeling vorticity: modeling the filter-feeding mechanism in
silver carp using μCT and 3D PIV": "In particular, silver carp feed on a broad range of particle sizes from 4 to 85 μm (Cremer and Smitherman, 1980;
Battonyai et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2009)"
---
"allow Seanniver to maximize": Allows Seannivers to maximize, unless it has odd conjugation, like "deer" or "sheep". If so, I recommend making a note of it in the description. There are other instances of using "Seanniver" as if it was like "deer" or "sheep", although your use of "Seannivers primarily feed" suggest this use was simply a typo.
"They have a flattened body" is a pronoun mistake. I recommend "It has", with the other pronouns matching "it" accordingly. There are other instances of pronoun misuse. Be sure to check by using the Ctrl + F key combination and "they" and "their".
"40 cm wingspan" would be best described as, "40 cm wide (wingspan)".
"rightside up": Right side up. This type of error should have been caught by a word processor.
"harvest sunlight easier" would sound more fluent as "harvest sunlight more easily".
"compressing their stomach": Can you explain how it does that? Muscular contractions, perhaps?
It would appear it compresses its stomach, while most plankton remain trapped in the gut. The stomach compressing ejects water outward. Guts are generally located in the opposite direction of the esophagus, although these do have a blind gut. Is the gut (intestine) in the direction of the mouth? I had assumed such for the Sitting Dundi, also a plent, although these two have almost nothing in common but for the same kingdom, so there's plenty of room to suppose they are different.
"barren environment" To say the open ocean is barren seems unfair. It's not like the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica, which haven't had any rain in 2 million years. It's better to note that food is generally sparse in that environment.
"Searays": isn't the name "Seanniver"? There are two instances of this other name.
P.S. The name is a reference to a Jenny Hanniver, isn't it?
Certainly. It's just that my attention has been divided on other things lately, and the rate of organism submissions is two to three times greater than I normally deal with. Can you wait 2-3 hours for me to get back to the three organisms you've suggested I review?
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Sep 1 2022, 08:52 PM) |
| I will note that you did not actually need to crop the rest of the image. It provided a lot of important information. I don't know why Coolsteph told you to do that. @Primalpikachu |
I said,
| QUOTE |
| I, personally, do not recommend putting text on it, and I recommend splitting the top view and side view into separate images, with the side view being a supplemental image. |
The image did provide important information, but I considered it best to put into a supplemental image. My Vase Seacural is an example of putting diagrammatic information into a supplemental image.
You'll need to erase "top view" and the conspicuous stray lines.
You'll also need to stanardize the lighting: there's some yellow lighting at the bottom-right. You should be able to do this easily be using the magic wand tool in GIMP to select the background, and then decolorizing the selection. Alternatively, you could copy the organism itself, decolorize the whole picture, and re-paste the organism onto a layer on top of the original to restore color to the organism and just the organism.
The second part of a scientific name is not capitalized.
The bottom of a rainforest surely has more predators than the atmosphere: at the very least, genus group species. There's also the possibility larger organisms might trample it. Does it have any anti-herbivore adaptations, or does it simply grow so fast that the occasional herbivore feeding is easily endured? Is it resilient to being trampled? It is a bit odd that something descended from practically limitless sunlight in the atmosphere should litter the forst floor of a rainforest: that's surely dark. In fact, it's dark enough the Spectresnatch, an originally cave-dwelling organism with translucent skin, also lives in the rainforest (though it is nocturnal). It would probably make more sense for it to live in a neighboring habitat, on the rainforest's outskirts, in temporary clearings with plenty of light, or on branches way up in the canopy.
You'll also need to stanardize the lighting: there's some yellow lighting at the bottom-right. You should be able to do this easily be using the magic wand tool in GIMP to select the background, and then decolorizing the selection. Alternatively, you could copy the organism itself, decolorize the whole picture, and re-paste the organism onto a layer on top of the original to restore color to the organism and just the organism.
The second part of a scientific name is not capitalized.
The bottom of a rainforest surely has more predators than the atmosphere: at the very least, genus group species. There's also the possibility larger organisms might trample it. Does it have any anti-herbivore adaptations, or does it simply grow so fast that the occasional herbivore feeding is easily endured? Is it resilient to being trampled? It is a bit odd that something descended from practically limitless sunlight in the atmosphere should litter the forst floor of a rainforest: that's surely dark. In fact, it's dark enough the Spectresnatch, an originally cave-dwelling organism with translucent skin, also lives in the rainforest (though it is nocturnal). It would probably make more sense for it to live in a neighboring habitat, on the rainforest's outskirts, in temporary clearings with plenty of light, or on branches way up in the canopy.
It's hard to evaluate the Quillroot without knowing its ancestor, and whether it has known herbivores which justify such extreme defenses. For example, if it lives in a habitat with little or no herbivores, such adaptations would not be plausible.
You'll have to elaborate how the iron reinforces its quills. Try checking out zinc-reinforced ovipositors in wasps, trees with nickel sap, and other examples of real-life organisms with body parts high in metal reinforcement.
You'll have to elaborate how the iron reinforces its quills. Try checking out zinc-reinforced ovipositors in wasps, trees with nickel sap, and other examples of real-life organisms with body parts high in metal reinforcement.
View Desktop Version | Disable Images in Posts
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.