Just a quick check...
Well, now the Moleroot has a very short description.
It still can't use iron as a source of energy. I recommend looking over previous feedback on how to give it a strong but biologically plausible association with iron.
Plants (or "flora", in this case) generally can't "escape" predators. That's why so many plants have passive defenses, like poisons or tasting bad. It would help to instead say that its tuber is a bigger proportion of its biomass, and it's deeper underground now, which makes it harder to dig up (although I don't recall if the Quillfence actually had any herbivores eating its tubers at time of evolution).
Well, now the Moleroot has a very short description.
It still can't use iron as a source of energy. I recommend looking over previous feedback on how to give it a strong but biologically plausible association with iron.
Plants (or "flora", in this case) generally can't "escape" predators. That's why so many plants have passive defenses, like poisons or tasting bad. It would help to instead say that its tuber is a bigger proportion of its biomass, and it's deeper underground now, which makes it harder to dig up (although I don't recall if the Quillfence actually had any herbivores eating its tubers at time of evolution).
Made suggested changes.
Adjusted size.
Added a part to the description to lengthen it a bit, and removed references to iron.
Adjusted size.
Added a part to the description to lengthen it a bit, and removed references to iron.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 9 2022, 06:40 PM) |
| Just a quick check... Well, now the Moleroot has a very short description. It still can't use iron as a source of energy. I recommend looking over previous feedback on how to give it a strong but biologically plausible association with iron. Plants (or "flora", in this case) generally can't "escape" predators. That's why so many plants have passive defenses, like poisons or tasting bad. It would help to instead say that its tuber is a bigger proportion of its biomass, and it's deeper underground now, which makes it harder to dig up (although I don't recall if the Quillfence actually had any herbivores eating its tubers at time of evolution). |
Please align the template (at the top) with the standard template, and standard template order.
There are some conspicuous spots of the leaves that aren't colored in. Now, this could be excused as indicating shiny leaves, as rendered in a watercolor style (e.g., Generation II Pokémon art), but if so, the description should make a note of its shiny leaves. The leaf on the lower right, though, has too much white coloration to allow the stylistic excuse.
Unless its stem is white, that should also be colored in. It's not out of the question it could be white (e.g., like a whitebark raspberry or paper birch), but since this is likely to be misinterpreted, it should be pointed out in the description.
There's a little puff of some sort in the right side of the picture. That should be erased.
"Burrowing further underground to evade predators" suggests intentionality in the direction of evolution. With the possible exception of octopi, which have weird genetic activity, this is a misleading portrayal of evolution. While some plants can indeed self-bury using seed awns that twist with temperature changes, "burrow" is misleading. I recommend, "The Moleroot is descended from a population of Quillfences whose tubers grew unusually deep underground, which better protected them from predators.)
If nitrocycle microbes are like the nitrogen-fixing microbes of legumes, they actually get nitrogen from the air. (This could use a more thorough check: I'll have to come back later.)
You'll need to elaborate on the mechanism of the shoot springing straight up. This isn't totally impossible, but it is improbable, particularly given the fact it's being developed all at once.
You don't need to highlight additions. They can be added without distinguishing them from the original description.
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?
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?
Apologies. Was thinking you were talking about something else when referring to alignment. Hopefully fixed now. And yes it has a sprawling habit.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 12 2022, 09:11 PM) |
| 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? |
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.
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.
Changed the description to hopefully work better. Describing it a “sprawling” instead of a direct reference.
Also had the shoot standing up be repeatable, not just a one-time thing.
The spores/spore casings are about 1mm big (about the size of a mustard seed).
And explained more about when the shoot would detach.
Also had the shoot standing up be repeatable, not just a one-time thing.
The spores/spore casings are about 1mm big (about the size of a mustard seed).
And explained more about when the shoot would detach.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 13 2022, 10:42 PM) |
| 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. |
"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.
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.
" 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.
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.
Eliminated "desicated" from description.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 18 2022, 12:42 PM) |
| " 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. |
How does multiple creators work when inputting to the wiki, like is there preference for a single creator and note of a second or are both listed outright.
This post has been edited by colddigger: Nov 22 2022, 09:28 AM
This post has been edited by colddigger: Nov 22 2022, 09:28 AM
The support isn't formatted correctly.
Is there a cohesive list of Coolsteph's contributions that make her more of a co-creator than any other reviewer?
Is there a cohesive list of Coolsteph's contributions that make her more of a co-creator than any other reviewer?
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Nov 22 2022, 04:09 PM) |
| The support isn't formatted correctly. Is there a cohesive list of Coolsteph's contributions that make her more of a co-creator than any other reviewer? |
Most of the current description was influenced by Coolsteph's multitude of suggestions.
Nobody else really commented as much.
edited Support to Cell Walls (Cellulose)
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.