" Because of its oil rich diet, its feathers are waterproof."
Aren't oils that animals use for waterproofing usually produced by their own glands?
Aren't oils that animals use for waterproofing usually produced by their own glands?
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Jan 26 2023, 08:22 PM) |
| " Because of its oil rich diet, its feathers are waterproof." Aren't oils that animals use for waterproofing usually produced by their own glands? |
yes
| QUOTE (colddigger @ Jan 27 2023, 03:38 AM) | ||
yes |
If waterfowl don’t get the fatty oils they need from their diet, their feathers lose their waterproofness
Changed the description to clarify:
“Because of its oil rich diet, it has a special gland that processes these oils, with which the Albedophrey uses to make its feathers waterproof, similar to a duck or other waterfowl.”
I searched "oil" and "oily" on the Sagan 4 wiki. The only results which would apply in these circumstances is how the Disorderly Gelatin (and likely at least some Twinkiiro descendants, e.g., Twinkiiros and Twinkorals) has oil stores. Unless Disorderly Gelatin descendants are secretly the lynchpin of oceanic ecology as a source of lipids low on the food chain, it seems best to assume it doesn't produce the oil like real-life waterfowl do. (Although, for such an important but uncommon claim, it make sense to provide a link.)
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Jan 27 2023, 09:33 AM) |
| I searched "oil" and "oily" on the Sagan 4 wiki. The only results which would apply in these circumstances is how the Disorderly Gelatin (and likely at least some Twinkiiro descendants, e.g., Twinkiiros and Twinkorals) has oil stores. Unless Disorderly Gelatin descendants are secretly the lynchpin of oceanic ecology as a source of lipids low on the food chain, it seems best to assume it doesn't produce the oil like real-life waterfowl do. (Although, for such an important but uncommon claim, it make sense to provide a link.) |
You’re also forgetting the Oilicle and a few others.
And The Mouse Gryphler does this as well. https://sagan4alpha.miraheze.org/wiki/Mouse_Gryphler
| QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Jan 27 2023, 06:12 AM) | ||||
If waterfowl don’t get the fatty oils they need from their diet, their feathers lose their waterproofness Changed the description to clarify: “Because of its oil rich diet, it has a special gland that processes these oils, with which the Albedophrey uses to make its feathers waterproof, similar to a duck or other waterfowl.” |
I think that works well.
Oil is energy dense storage and building material.
It's a safe bet that all actively mobile organisms will have fat stores, and aquatic life will have more unsaturated fats due to sitting in warmth stripping water all their life.
On the topic of kiiros, they should be oily
| QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Jan 27 2023, 09:02 AM) | ||
You’re also forgetting the Oilicle and a few others. And The Mouse Gryphler does this as well. https://sagan4alpha.miraheze.org/wiki/Mouse_Gryphler |
I did not forget the Oilicle.
Oilicle predators: Mortusyte, Mortuprey
Mortusyte predators: Umbrajet
Mortuprey predators: Umbrajet
Umbrajet predators: none.
Lipids derived from Oilicles would have a hard time getting into these.
As for the Mouse Gryphler....those don't even have overlapping habitats.
Colddigger, I did just mention kiiros would surely have oil in them, and suggested the possibility they are lynchpins of lipids in the ocean.
How many background biochemical assumptions do we need to make? Them synthesizing their own lipids from base components is still an option.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Jan 27 2023, 11:55 AM) | ||||
I did not forget the Oilicle. Oilicle predators: Mortusyte, Mortuprey Mortusyte predators: Umbrajet Mortuprey predators: Umbrajet Umbrajet predators: none. Lipids derived from Oilicles would have a hard time getting into these. As for the Mouse Gryphler....those don't even have overlapping habitats. Colddigger, I did just mention kiiros would surely have oil in them, and suggested the possibility they are lynchpins of lipids in the ocean. How many background biochemical assumptions do we need to make? Them synthesizing their own lipids from base components is still an option. |
Is this just miscommunication?
Base components like lipids etc. in its food.
Its body processes these and creates an “oil” for it to use on its feathers.
That’s what it already does.
I wasn’t talking about Texas tea or Exxon oil.
i know what biological oil compounds are. But unless it's a special means of obtaining particular components, why specify it gets that raw material from its diet? Every animal gets its base materials for its diet and create compounds within its body from them.
When people say, "The protein in a flamingo's body comes from shrimp", that isn't distinctive. Everyone can get protein from shrimp, and many other foods besides that. When people say, "Flamingos are pink because of the pigments in the shrimp in their diet", that is more noteworthy. What are even the chances this organism would have a completely lipid-free diet in the wild, to the point it wouldn't be able to make the oil even if its caloric needs were met? I figure the chances are practically zero.
When people say, "The protein in a flamingo's body comes from shrimp", that isn't distinctive. Everyone can get protein from shrimp, and many other foods besides that. When people say, "Flamingos are pink because of the pigments in the shrimp in their diet", that is more noteworthy. What are even the chances this organism would have a completely lipid-free diet in the wild, to the point it wouldn't be able to make the oil even if its caloric needs were met? I figure the chances are practically zero.
“ try and steal” (Try to steal)
There’s a stray comma after “Shailnitor” in the diet list.
“These oils”: That doesn’t make sense; just “oils” will do.
It seems “shy of” means “just slightly less than”. You may have meant “shy away from”, although “it is not against” is more straightforward. However, “It will occasionally dive into the water” is clearer.
Since you used “them” in the second sentence, saying “foods” in the first sentence, in the plural, makes more sense.
There aren’t any organisms simply called “Ferrine”. You must have meant “Ferries”, the genus group.
That little black speck in the art is annoying and conspicuous, but I’m going to say it’s a tiny volcanic islet seen on a very foggy day above the ocean and let it pass.
There’s a stray comma after “Shailnitor” in the diet list.
“These oils”: That doesn’t make sense; just “oils” will do.
It seems “shy of” means “just slightly less than”. You may have meant “shy away from”, although “it is not against” is more straightforward. However, “It will occasionally dive into the water” is clearer.
Since you used “them” in the second sentence, saying “foods” in the first sentence, in the plural, makes more sense.
There aren’t any organisms simply called “Ferrine”. You must have meant “Ferries”, the genus group.
That little black speck in the art is annoying and conspicuous, but I’m going to say it’s a tiny volcanic islet seen on a very foggy day above the ocean and let it pass.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Jan 30 2023, 02:18 PM) |
| “ try and steal” (Try to steal) There’s a stray comma after “Shailnitor” in the diet list. “These oils”: That doesn’t make sense; just “oils” will do. It seems “shy of” means “just slightly less than”. You may have meant “shy away from”, although “it is not against” is more straightforward. However, “It will occasionally dive into the water” is clearer. Since you used “them” in the second sentence, saying “foods” in the first sentence, in the plural, makes more sense. There aren’t any organisms simply called “Ferrine”. You must have meant “Ferries”, the genus group. That little black speck in the art is annoying and conspicuous, but I’m going to say it’s a tiny volcanic islet seen on a very foggy day above the ocean and let it pass. |
made corrections, except for the comma, which should be correctly placed.
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.