Approval Checklist:
Art:
Art Present?: y
Art clear?: y
Gen number?: y
All limbs shown?: y
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: y
Realistic additions?: y
Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: y
Creator?: y
Ancestor:
Listed?: y
What changes?:
New Genus Needed?: Already done
Habitat:
Type?: 2/3
Flavor?: 2/3
Connected to Ancestor?: y
Contiguous?: y
Wildcard?: n/a
Size:
Same as Ancestor?: n (bigger)
Within range?: No - the ancestor is 40 cm tall.
Exception?: Maybe? are the wings being counted?
Support:
Same as Ancestor?: Probably
Does it Fit Lifestyle?: Yes
Does It Fit Size?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a
Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: n (expanded)
Transition Rule?: n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?: yes
Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: y
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Does it Fit Size?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a
Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: y
Does It Fit Habitat?: Uncertain
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: How does it cope with winter temperatures without insulation or endothermy?
Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: y
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a
Description:
Length?: Decently long and detailed
Capitalized correctly?: y
Replace/Split from ancestor?: Not specified
Other?: n/a
Status: Pending - see highlighted issues
Art:
Art Present?: y
Art clear?: y
Gen number?: y
All limbs shown?: y
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: y
Realistic additions?: y
Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: y
Creator?: y
Ancestor:
Listed?: y
What changes?:
- External?: Needles are now calcified spikes, more extensive butt nostril spikes, head armor
- Internal?: Usable chloroplasts in skin, Male now has pouch for mouth brooding,
- Behavioral/Mental?: Eats more meat, beats threats with wings, lekking,
New Genus Needed?: Already done
Habitat:
Type?: 2/3
Flavor?: 2/3
Connected to Ancestor?: y
Contiguous?: y
Wildcard?: n/a
Size:
Same as Ancestor?: n (bigger)
Within range?: No - the ancestor is 40 cm tall.
Exception?: Maybe? are the wings being counted?
Support:
Same as Ancestor?: Probably
Does it Fit Lifestyle?: Yes
Does It Fit Size?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a
Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: n (expanded)
Transition Rule?: n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?: yes
Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: y
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Does it Fit Size?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a
Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: y
Does It Fit Habitat?: Uncertain
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: How does it cope with winter temperatures without insulation or endothermy?
Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: y
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a
Description:
Length?: Decently long and detailed
Capitalized correctly?: y
Replace/Split from ancestor?: Not specified
Other?: n/a
Status: Pending - see highlighted issues
This is pretty much just a rundown of the entire approval checklist, what each thing on it means, and where relevant, how to check for something.
Approval Checklist:
Art:
Art Present?: Basically, does the species have a colored image depicting it?
Art clear?: Can you tell what it is and where its limbs are? Is the image crisp and non-blurry? Is the organism unobscured by foreground objects?
This does not mean "is the art good?". Most members are not what some people might call "great artists", and Sagan 4 doesn't strive to be a project filled exclusively with god-tier artwork, especially as it tends to appeal to people who are only just getting into spec/creature design. Basically, the art just needs to be recognizable as what it is trying to depict.
Gen number?: Is there a number in the image, and is it correct to the current generation? (See the pinned compendium in the submission subforum)
All limbs shown?: Are any major body parts cut off or obscured? Ideally, every organism should have whether its limbs are single or paired abundantly clear. Top-down views frequently obscure legs and mouth anatomy, and should not be approved in most cases. (note, it's fine for toes on one foot to be obscured if the opposing foot is visible)
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: Does it at the very least look like a descendant or relative of the ancestor? Eg. if the ancestor is a cat, the species under review should look somewhat like a cat too. Also watch out for major anatomy mistakes, such as extra limb joints or missing features.
Realistic additions?: Are any additions it appears to have reasonable? This doesn't just apply to unjustified reduplication; look out for things like ridiculous over-armoring from an unarmored ancestor, etc.
Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: Does it have a genus and species listed in the submission form? (for a single species entry this would look like Genus species; for a multi-species entry this would be Genus spp.)
Creator?: Is the creator of the species listed in the species form? Usually this is the person who posted it, but there are exceptions, and there have actually been incidents where creator information was lost due to this not being filled in.
Ancestor:
Listed?: Does it say what its ancestor is in the species form?
What changes?: Listing the changes actually serves more to ensure the reviewer read the text of both the submission and its ancestor. Don't just skim, or else you might miss something major.
Do note that sometimes, new information will actually be elaborations, not changes. Elaborations have become more common as standards for description length has gone up, so make sure to watch out for them. Sometimes an elaboration can be unreasonable as well (such as larvae resembling earlier evolutionary stages), and if so, please call it out.
New Genus Needed?: (If yes, list why) - Basically, do these changes result in it probably being a different genus from its ancestor? Is there any specific reason why? (If the entry already has a new genus, you can just say "already done")
Habitat: See biome rules for terminology and what it means.
Type?: List the climate types the species is present in; if it's in more than 3 in Alpha or 2 in Beta, then it will need to be changed.
Flavor?: List the "flavors" of biome (rainforest, scrubland, etc) that the species is present in. If it's in more than 3, then it will need to be changed. (Make sure to check the rules for exceptions).
Connected to Ancestor?: A species range must be either adjacent or overlapping with that of the ancestor. Instructions:
Contiguous?: On the map edit you just made, is the range of the species under review unbroken? (Note that crossing flyways is considered "connected" in Beta and that exceptions may be made for island hopping as long as it's explained)
Wildcard?: If the species' range breaks the habitat rules, is it also declared a wildcard? (Wildcards may break the type/flavor rules as long as it's explained)
Size:
Same as Ancestor?: Is it the exact same size as the ancestor? I actually don't know why this question is here.
Within range?: If the species is not the same size as the ancestor, does it follow the size rules?
Exception?: If the species does not follow the size rules, is it sufficiently justified?
Support:
Same as Ancestor?: Does the species have the same or equivalent support structure listed as its ancestor? (Note, the support slot did not always exist, so some species may have their support listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does it Fit Lifestyle?: Obviously, it isn't gonna be sprinting around without any bones in its legs.
Does It Fit Size?: Can its support actually, well, support it at its size? Eg. a creature with an exoskeleton isn't gonna be getting super big.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the support listed differs from the ancestor, is it a realistic change? eg a realistic change might be calcifying an exoskeleton, an unrealistic change might be turning a hydrostatic skeleton into a full mineralized endoskeleton.
Other?: Place for comments about support
Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: Does it eat the exact same stuff as the ancestor? I don't know why this question is here, since the answer is almost universally "no".
Transition Rule?: Basically, does it follow the diet rules? eg. an obligate carnivore cannot evolve directly into an obligate herbivore in one step
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the diet is different from the ancestor's, does the way it differs seem reasonable?
Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: Is its listed respiration method the same or equivalent to its ancestor's? (Note, the respiration slot did not always exist, so some species may have their respiration listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of breathing where it lives? No gills in montane deserts and no lungs in the abyss, obviously.
Does it Fit Size?: Is the species too big or too small for its respiration method? (Passive respirers can't be megafauna, lungs kinda stop working when you're too small.)
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the respiration differs from its ancestor, is it realistic? (eg. fusing a system of microlungs into a unidirectional lung would be realistic, but gaining a whole lung out of nothing would not be)
Other?: Place for comments about respiration
Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the thermoregulation listed the same or equivalent to the ancestor's? (Note, the thermoregulation slot did not always exist, so some species may have their thermoregulation listed as unknown; it needs to be elaborated in new species.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of thermoregulating and maintaining its lifestyle in its habitat? eg. basking isn't possible in a cavern, fur is useless compared to blubber in the deep sea, and there probably shouldn't be active ectotherms with high metabolisms on glaciers.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs from the ancestor, is it realistic? Eg. if it evolved into an endotherm, is it eating enough to generate that much eat and is it sufficiently insulated against the elements?
Other?: Place for comments about thermoregulation.
Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the reproduction listed the same as or equivalent to what the ancestor has listed?
Does It Fit Habitat?: eg. it probably shouldn't be laying frog-like eggs in the sagan 4 equivalent to the sahara.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs, are the changes realistic? eg. an egg-layer shouldn't be evolving directly to vivipary, reproductive organs shouldn't be drastically changing location, and spores cannot just """advance""" into pollen and seeds.
Exception: We allow sexual reproduction to appear out of nowhere in groups that are asexual-only (many flora) or lost sexual reproduction for a dumb reason (cellulosebanes...sigh). If it's regaining sexual reproduction, it should resemble how its more distant ancestors did it. If it's evolving it from scratch, it should be derived from their existing asexual method and be as simple to start with as is reasonable - no new complex organ systems.
Other?: Place for comments about reproduction.
Description:
Length?: Is the description long enough? How would you describe its length?
Capitalized correctly?: Do sentences start with a capital letter? Are species names capitalized consistently? (Some members capitalize them like pokemon names and others keep them lowercase like real animal names;
Replace/Split from ancestor?: Does it declare whether it replaced or split from its ancestor? Does it mention outcompeting any species?
Other?: Place for any additional comments you may have.
Opinion:
Approved
Species should be marked approved if there's nothing wrong with them.
Pending(why)
Here, you can point out where your comments that need to be addressed are located. Highlighting them in a distinct color is also recommended.
Rejected (why):
Species should generally only be rejected if either the creator doesn't make changes, or if fixing it would require so many changes that the end result is unrecognizable as being the same submission. A submission may also be rejected for being made from an extinct ancestor with no modern species that can be used. Mods can also declare a species as rejected under some special circumstances, such as if a submission was made in bad faith.
Approval Checklist:
Art:
Art Present?: Basically, does the species have a colored image depicting it?
Art clear?: Can you tell what it is and where its limbs are? Is the image crisp and non-blurry? Is the organism unobscured by foreground objects?
This does not mean "is the art good?". Most members are not what some people might call "great artists", and Sagan 4 doesn't strive to be a project filled exclusively with god-tier artwork, especially as it tends to appeal to people who are only just getting into spec/creature design. Basically, the art just needs to be recognizable as what it is trying to depict.
Gen number?: Is there a number in the image, and is it correct to the current generation? (See the pinned compendium in the submission subforum)
All limbs shown?: Are any major body parts cut off or obscured? Ideally, every organism should have whether its limbs are single or paired abundantly clear. Top-down views frequently obscure legs and mouth anatomy, and should not be approved in most cases. (note, it's fine for toes on one foot to be obscured if the opposing foot is visible)
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: Does it at the very least look like a descendant or relative of the ancestor? Eg. if the ancestor is a cat, the species under review should look somewhat like a cat too. Also watch out for major anatomy mistakes, such as extra limb joints or missing features.
Realistic additions?: Are any additions it appears to have reasonable? This doesn't just apply to unjustified reduplication; look out for things like ridiculous over-armoring from an unarmored ancestor, etc.
Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: Does it have a genus and species listed in the submission form? (for a single species entry this would look like Genus species; for a multi-species entry this would be Genus spp.)
Creator?: Is the creator of the species listed in the species form? Usually this is the person who posted it, but there are exceptions, and there have actually been incidents where creator information was lost due to this not being filled in.
Ancestor:
Listed?: Does it say what its ancestor is in the species form?
What changes?: Listing the changes actually serves more to ensure the reviewer read the text of both the submission and its ancestor. Don't just skim, or else you might miss something major.
- External?: Changes that occur to the exterior of the organism. Some will be visible in the art, such as color and proportions, while others might be in the text, like fur density.
- Internal?: Changes to organs, changes to bones, changes to reproduction, etc.; these will usually be in the description, but sometimes there are diagrams.
- Behavioral/Mental?: Eg. sociality, parental care
Do note that sometimes, new information will actually be elaborations, not changes. Elaborations have become more common as standards for description length has gone up, so make sure to watch out for them. Sometimes an elaboration can be unreasonable as well (such as larvae resembling earlier evolutionary stages), and if so, please call it out.
New Genus Needed?: (If yes, list why) - Basically, do these changes result in it probably being a different genus from its ancestor? Is there any specific reason why? (If the entry already has a new genus, you can just say "already done")
Habitat: See biome rules for terminology and what it means.
Type?: List the climate types the species is present in; if it's in more than 3 in Alpha or 2 in Beta, then it will need to be changed.
Flavor?: List the "flavors" of biome (rainforest, scrubland, etc) that the species is present in. If it's in more than 3, then it will need to be changed. (Make sure to check the rules for exceptions).
Connected to Ancestor?: A species range must be either adjacent or overlapping with that of the ancestor. Instructions:
- Step 1:Visit the current ecosystem page and download the current map.
- Step 2: Use your browser's find-in-page tool to search for all instances of the submission's ancestor on the ecosystem page. You may write them down, or do this simultaneously with the next step.
- Step 3: Opening the map in your art program of choice, on a new layer, find each biome that the ancestor can be found in and use the paint bucket tool to fill it in, constructing an overall current range of the species.
- Step 4: On a new layer and in a different color, do the same with the habitat listed for the descendant that you are reviewing.
Contiguous?: On the map edit you just made, is the range of the species under review unbroken? (Note that crossing flyways is considered "connected" in Beta and that exceptions may be made for island hopping as long as it's explained)
Wildcard?: If the species' range breaks the habitat rules, is it also declared a wildcard? (Wildcards may break the type/flavor rules as long as it's explained)
Size:
Same as Ancestor?: Is it the exact same size as the ancestor? I actually don't know why this question is here.
Within range?: If the species is not the same size as the ancestor, does it follow the size rules?
Exception?: If the species does not follow the size rules, is it sufficiently justified?
Support:
Same as Ancestor?: Does the species have the same or equivalent support structure listed as its ancestor? (Note, the support slot did not always exist, so some species may have their support listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does it Fit Lifestyle?: Obviously, it isn't gonna be sprinting around without any bones in its legs.
Does It Fit Size?: Can its support actually, well, support it at its size? Eg. a creature with an exoskeleton isn't gonna be getting super big.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the support listed differs from the ancestor, is it a realistic change? eg a realistic change might be calcifying an exoskeleton, an unrealistic change might be turning a hydrostatic skeleton into a full mineralized endoskeleton.
Other?: Place for comments about support
Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: Does it eat the exact same stuff as the ancestor? I don't know why this question is here, since the answer is almost universally "no".
Transition Rule?: Basically, does it follow the diet rules? eg. an obligate carnivore cannot evolve directly into an obligate herbivore in one step
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the diet is different from the ancestor's, does the way it differs seem reasonable?
Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: Is its listed respiration method the same or equivalent to its ancestor's? (Note, the respiration slot did not always exist, so some species may have their respiration listed as unknown; this is okay, but it should be elaborated if possible, and must be elaborated in megafauna.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of breathing where it lives? No gills in montane deserts and no lungs in the abyss, obviously.
Does it Fit Size?: Is the species too big or too small for its respiration method? (Passive respirers can't be megafauna, lungs kinda stop working when you're too small.)
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If the respiration differs from its ancestor, is it realistic? (eg. fusing a system of microlungs into a unidirectional lung would be realistic, but gaining a whole lung out of nothing would not be)
Other?: Place for comments about respiration
Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the thermoregulation listed the same or equivalent to the ancestor's? (Note, the thermoregulation slot did not always exist, so some species may have their thermoregulation listed as unknown; it needs to be elaborated in new species.)
Does It Fit Habitat?: Is it capable of thermoregulating and maintaining its lifestyle in its habitat? eg. basking isn't possible in a cavern, fur is useless compared to blubber in the deep sea, and there probably shouldn't be active ectotherms with high metabolisms on glaciers.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs from the ancestor, is it realistic? Eg. if it evolved into an endotherm, is it eating enough to generate that much eat and is it sufficiently insulated against the elements?
Other?: Place for comments about thermoregulation.
Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: Is the reproduction listed the same as or equivalent to what the ancestor has listed?
Does It Fit Habitat?: eg. it probably shouldn't be laying frog-like eggs in the sagan 4 equivalent to the sahara.
Reasonable changes (if any)?: If it differs, are the changes realistic? eg. an egg-layer shouldn't be evolving directly to vivipary, reproductive organs shouldn't be drastically changing location, and spores cannot just """advance""" into pollen and seeds.
Exception: We allow sexual reproduction to appear out of nowhere in groups that are asexual-only (many flora) or lost sexual reproduction for a dumb reason (cellulosebanes...sigh). If it's regaining sexual reproduction, it should resemble how its more distant ancestors did it. If it's evolving it from scratch, it should be derived from their existing asexual method and be as simple to start with as is reasonable - no new complex organ systems.
Other?: Place for comments about reproduction.
Description:
Length?: Is the description long enough? How would you describe its length?
Capitalized correctly?: Do sentences start with a capital letter? Are species names capitalized consistently? (Some members capitalize them like pokemon names and others keep them lowercase like real animal names;
Replace/Split from ancestor?: Does it declare whether it replaced or split from its ancestor? Does it mention outcompeting any species?
Other?: Place for any additional comments you may have.
Opinion:
Approved
Species should be marked approved if there's nothing wrong with them.
Pending(why)
Here, you can point out where your comments that need to be addressed are located. Highlighting them in a distinct color is also recommended.
Rejected (why):
Species should generally only be rejected if either the creator doesn't make changes, or if fixing it would require so many changes that the end result is unrecognizable as being the same submission. A submission may also be rejected for being made from an extinct ancestor with no modern species that can be used. Mods can also declare a species as rejected under some special circumstances, such as if a submission was made in bad faith.
How is it able to use phycocyanin with retinol? Phycocyanin passes light to the main pigment, but if they can't exist in the same place, this does not occur.
| QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Apr 29 2023, 05:51 AM) | ||
It’s already fauna. Ancestor is fauna: https://sagan4alpha.miraheze.org/wiki/Radiashrub |
Did you mistake an image of 5 of them mating for an animal?
This is new fauna. Does it satisfy Mni's requirement that it must bring something new to the table that can't be made with any existing group?
Fragorishroot (Neocurrenatherium inexplicabilis)
Creator: Disgustedorite
Ancestor: Velishroot
Habitat: Ichthy Tropical Mudflat, Ichthy Tropical Riparian, Ichthy Montane Riparian, Terra Tropical Mudflat, Terra Tropical Riparian, Terra Montane Riparian, Wright Subtropical Mudflat, Wright Subtropical Riparian, Wright Montane Riparian, Pipcard Subtropical Mudflat, Pipcard Subtropical Riparian, Pipcard Montane Riparian, Kenotai Subtropical Mudflat, Kenotai Subtropical Riparian, Kenotai Montane Riparian, Bardic Tropical Mudflat, Bardic Tropical Riparian, Bardic Montane Riparian, Glicker Subtropical Mudflat, Glicker Subtropical Riparian, Glicker Montane Riparian, Gec Tropical Mudflat, Gec Tropical Riparian, Gec Montane Riparian, Biocat Subtropical Mudflat, Biocat Subtropical Riparian, Huggs Subtropical Riparian, Biocat Montane Riparian, Huggs Montane Riparian, Wallace Tropical Rainforest, Central Wallace Tropical Woodland, Dixon Tropical Woodland, Dixon Subtropical Rainforest, Dixon Subtropical Woodland, West Wallace Tropical Woodland, Raptor Tropical Rainforest, Dixon Cloud Rainforest, Dixon Highboreal, Raptor Highboreal, Central Wallace Highboreal, Darwin Highboreal, Darwin CLoud Rainforest, Darwin Tropical Woodland, Dorite Subtropical Woodland, Darwin Tropical Rainforest, Darwin Subtropical Rainforest, South Darwin Subtropical Woodland
Size: 62 cm long
Support: Endoskeleton (Bone)
Diet: Omnivore (Aphluks, Feluks, Mikuks, Hair Nimbuses, Floraverms, Sweetworms, Leepi Meepi, Pioneeroots, Marbleflora, Chitjorns, Rustmolds, Eusuckers, Minifee, Sruglettes, Xenobees, Minikruggs, Vermees, Glaalgaes, Larands, Silkruggs, Xenowasps, Gushitos, Teacup Saucebacks, Uniwingworms, Dragonworms, Minibees, Oozocorns, Sunstalks, Neuks, Supershrooms, Sapshrooms, Dartirs, Sapworms, Tamed Berry Arbourshrooms, Gamergate Gundis, Mudfish, Ferry berries, Crunchy Trufflegrass crumples, Berry Arbourshroom, Canoe Krugg, Branching Qupe Tree fruit, Clickworm, Gallratworm, Common Fraboo, Weird-Boned Twintail, Carnosprawl fruit, Tlukvaequabora fruit, Borinvermee, Bora Scuttler, Frayedspikes fruit, Swampfarer fruit, Carnurtain fruit, Tonsa Krugg, Catch-Me Krugg, Tonboswarmer, Nectascooter, Marblora, Pert, Agate Krugg, Carnossamer fruit, Mainland Fuzzpalm berries, Twin-Tail Orbibom berries, Carnofern Flugwurm, Ruddy Hawklette, Hissing Krugg, Fuzzpile berries, Dungshell Fraboo, Grub Krugg, Nightcrawler Borvermid, Cleaner Borvermid, False Cleaner Borvermid, Bloodback, Woodland Watergherkin, Boreal Pop Sprout, Cup Qupe fruit, Penumbra Fuzzpalm berries, Monostage Dirteater), Ovivore (Wadesnapper, Hang-Gliding Pinyuk, Desert Ukjaw, Wallace Quails, Krikrees, Harnejak, Shrogsnapper, Burrsnapper, Bobbysoxer, Woodsalcon, Gnawsferatu, Tierracolmillos, Ambrosiaraptor, Vibrant Manestrider, Coastwoodufo, Songsauce Piper, Vermisnapper, Robynsnapper, Argusraptor Complex, Interbiat, Fluneinzee, Xatadeega, Disasterxata, Ballichehara, Dinotuga, Nectarsnapper, Shellcrusher Flunejaw, Long-Tailed Flunejaw), Scavenger
Respiration: Active (Lungs)
Thermoregulation: Endotherm (Fur)
Reproduction: Sexual (Male and Female, Live Birth, Pouch and Milk)
The fragorishroot replaced its ancestor. For the millions of years since the ice comet disaster had rendered it extinct in all but one biome, and through the vast ice age that followed and the most recent diluvian disaster, the velishroot had stayed put in the wetland delta of Ichthy. It had been prevented from re-expanding its range by competition with nodents, then skuniks, then nodents again, similar to the failure of Earth’s multituberculate mammals to recover and expand their range after K-Pg.
But for the past several million years, everything has been changing. Well, actually, mostly, just the predators--now, the land is ruled by jewel-eyed saucebacks with powerful jaws that bypass the wood-based defenses used by plent competitors, but still have a little more trouble with the mineralized bones of spondylozoans. This eased the competitive pressure, allowing this ancient shrew to begin expanding its range.
The fragorishroot differs from other living chaetotherian shrews, from which it diverged a little over 150 million years ago, in a few different ways. Its hind scapula is still internal, leaving it with only a single knee instead of the two that are typical of tams and cheekhorns; it lacks a rhinarium, instead having fur on its nose; and its face completely lacks whiskers. It also has a pouch which can be sealed by flattening the entrance against its belly, as is typical in its particular grade of shrew, which differs from the sphincter method employed by shrogs. It also has a small brain, smaller even than that of the scramblers, though it also has some brain features unique to it, which appeared in the millions of years since its lineage diverged from the rest of the furred shrews. For instance, while its cerebral cortex is smooth and lacking in folds, it is much smarter than a smooth-brained creature of its size “should” be, as its brain is actually rather bird-like and has a high neuron density to compensate for the restrictions on its cranium’s size caused by its marsupial-like reproductive strategy. It also has access to, of all things, the blue pigment phycocyanobilin, which is basal to spondylozoans--having been acquired from an ancient symbiosis with crystal flora--but lost in all other shrews. This pigment is responsible for the rich blue and violet markings present in males, where it is used as a health indicator, due to its production being directly linked to nutrition.
In terms of lifestyle, the fragorishroot is somewhat social, like its ancestor, living in groups in burrows which it may also share with other creatures (particularly, the shoveltail). It is sexually dimorphic, with males (pictured) being more brightly colored than females, and each colony usually has one dominant male and his many mates. Cryptic males which resemble females also exist, using their feminine appearance to sneak in and mate. However, the dominant male will try to kick them out upon discovery, attacking with an enlarged inner hind claw. Females have this claw as well, used mostly for defense. Females give birth to 4 fetal young which live in their mother’s pouch for the first several weeks of their lives, generally staying longer than tams do.
The fragorishroot is vocal, mostly communicating by grunting. It can also scream when threatened.
The fragorishroot has caused the spread of another ancient creature--the shoveltail. Although the shoveltail’s relationship with ancestral velishroots has long been very complicated, due to velishroots sometimes eating its eggs, the truth of the matter is that it was the survival of this ancient shrew that enabled the shoveltail’s survival too--they weathered through the impact winter following the ice comet together, sharing food stores, and at the peak of the snowball event, the two species would share warmth in a shared burrow. This long-lasting friendship, somewhere along the way, resulted in a permanent change to the ancestral velishroot to cease consuming shoveltail eggs. This means that the velishroot actively aided the shoveltail in survival, and thus it was inevitable that the fragorishroot, too, would enable it to spread beyond the bounds of the wetlands to its whole range. The two species generally reside in the same burrows, pooling resources where their diets overlap and combining their different strengths for defending their home and offspring.
The fragorishroot did not simply spread out silently as a little addition to Sagan 4’s diversity. Its survival when pressured into such a tiny habitat for millions of years had turned it into a fighter--more so than any other shrew. That is to say, it wasn’t so much being blocked by superior organisms than being restrained. This is evidenced by what it proceeded to do--that is, it outcompeted both the neoshrew and the opportunity shrew where their ranges overlap, by forcing them out of burrows, using its more efficient backwards knee setup to catch prey and escape predators more easily, and by eating faster with better teeth--being derived from the more primitive condition from before shrew teeth fully diverged into all their modern types, only its molars are permanent while the rest of its teeth are constantly replaced, making wear meaningless to it and keeping all of its teeth constantly sharp. Despite its small brain, it is also more intelligent than the opportunity shrew, and quite unexpectedly even capable of limited tool use mostly in the form of rock anvils--once again thanks to a high neuron density that it evolved to compensate for restrictions to the size of its cranium. Once upon a time, these were just features it used to stay alive under high competitive pressure, but now that the pressure has been slackened, it is as though Pandora’s box has been opened, and for the small- to mid-sized shrews of Wallace, life will never be the same.
Gallery Image Caption: Female
--
You know, every now and then, I begin to think we found all the crazy extinction mistakes and dumb luck revivals now that most extinction causes have been filled in. Then something like this happens.
It's one at a time, yeah. I didn't think about timing. What do you suggest?
Mancerxa: Plent Pigments
There has been some historic confusion about the importance of color in plents, a confusion that enabled argusraptors to just go and eat a bunch of them to extinction for being unnecessarily green for photosynthesis. Plents appear to have access to typical plant pigments or some analogue to them, many of which are compatible with photosynthesis. Here, I will go over each one and what it may be useful for.
Chlorophylls
Chlorophyll a
Type: Primary pigment
Color: Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Primarily performs it
UV: Fluoresces red
Chlorophyll b
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Absorbs additional blue light
UV: Reflects
Everyone already knows these ones, I should hope. This is the default color, which may be good for display and for camouflage against green flora, but in most environments an additional pigment may be favorable.
Chlorophyll c
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Blue-Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Allows absorption of UV light
UV: Absorbs
Generally infrequent in plents apart from skuniks, but it may technically be an option for swarmers to evolve, since they are frequently exposed to UV light.
Chlorophyll d
Type: Accessory Pigment
Color: Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Allows absorption of infrared light
UV: (having trouble finding information)
Being able to absorb infrared light may be advantageous in an organism which lives in the shade or anywhere else where high-energy light has already been filtered.
Carotenoids
Carotenoids can camouflage a plent against many soils. It also deposits in the skin and feathers of keratin- and chitin-using predators, if they are to eat it.
A non-photosynthetic plent uses modified chlorophyll as a blood pigment, presumably in a chloroplast-derived structure...carotenoids would be in those...are some plents using modified blood to pigment their skin, I wonder? That's cursed.
Carotene
Type: Accessory Pigment
Color: Orange or red
Effect on Photosynthesis: Allows absorption of ultraviolet light
UV: Absorbs
All plents probably have this, given how many plents have taken on colors in this range. It would be present in chloroplasts, including those modified into blood cells, which in turn probably means cooked plents--and their blood--turn red/orange the same way lobsters do.
In excessive amounts, this may take over as the main visible photosynthesis pigment, as it has in many algae. Alternatively, it can be exposed by death of chloroplasts in the skin, either intentionally or from disease targeting the pigment cells, producing the color without the photosynthesis.
Xanthophyll
Type: Accessory Pigment
Color: Yellow
Effect on Photosynthesis: Modulates light energy, protects chlorophyll from intense light
UV: Absorbs
Similar to carotene, but oxygenated. Probably good for plents that live out in the sun. (This may also be a necessary component in the diets of some organisms!)
Interesting note: modern nodent species are very yellow, and coincidentally used to live in caves where they would have lost their existing UV protections. Perhaps these pigments evolved not just for camouflage, but for defense against UV radiation.
Phycobilins
As biles, these would be produced as a product of the plent's metabolism rather than produced directly for their purpose in coloration, so they may be better health indicators than other pigments.
Phycoerythrin
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Red
Effect on Photosynthesis: Enables absorption of more kinds of light in dimmer conditions
UV: Reflects
Possibly also found in: Boneflora
Another red. This seems to also be present in some swarmers, where it is erroneously noted as "not interfering" with photosynthesis rather than aiding it. Being red might be good for camouflaging in boneflora, or for some kind of display or warning coloration since it's a pretty rare color on land.
Phycocyanin
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Blue
Effect on photosynthesis: Allows absorption of red and orange light.
UV: Reflects
Possibly also found in: Glass flora
This can produce a rich blue color. In lower quantities, it may help camouflage against glass flora.
Other
Anthocyanin
Type: Non-photosynthetic
Color: Purple, red, blue, black
Effect on Photosynthesis: Little/none when purple; blocks when black
UV: Greatly absorbs
Anthocyanins are basal to land plents and have been used by many species to camouflage against purple flora. They may fulfill an analogous role to melanin as a natural sunscreen and general darkening pigment.
Warning: purple flora reflect UV light. Organisms which can see into the UV spectrum can see purple plents against purple plants.
Tannins
Type: Non-photosynthetic
Color: Brown, reddish brown
Effect on Photosynthesis: May block in large quantities
UV: Absorbs
Tannins are the reason bark is often brown. It may be responsible for the otherwise unexplained brown coloration of some plent wood, which has some interesting implications. When deposited in the skin and flesh of a plent, tannins make it bitter and inhibits a predator's ability to digest it.
There has been some historic confusion about the importance of color in plents, a confusion that enabled argusraptors to just go and eat a bunch of them to extinction for being unnecessarily green for photosynthesis. Plents appear to have access to typical plant pigments or some analogue to them, many of which are compatible with photosynthesis. Here, I will go over each one and what it may be useful for.
Chlorophylls
Chlorophyll a
Type: Primary pigment
Color: Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Primarily performs it
UV: Fluoresces red
Chlorophyll b
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Absorbs additional blue light
UV: Reflects
Everyone already knows these ones, I should hope. This is the default color, which may be good for display and for camouflage against green flora, but in most environments an additional pigment may be favorable.
Chlorophyll c
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Blue-Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Allows absorption of UV light
UV: Absorbs
Generally infrequent in plents apart from skuniks, but it may technically be an option for swarmers to evolve, since they are frequently exposed to UV light.
Chlorophyll d
Type: Accessory Pigment
Color: Green
Effect on Photosynthesis: Allows absorption of infrared light
UV: (having trouble finding information)
Being able to absorb infrared light may be advantageous in an organism which lives in the shade or anywhere else where high-energy light has already been filtered.
Carotenoids
Carotenoids can camouflage a plent against many soils. It also deposits in the skin and feathers of keratin- and chitin-using predators, if they are to eat it.
A non-photosynthetic plent uses modified chlorophyll as a blood pigment, presumably in a chloroplast-derived structure...carotenoids would be in those...are some plents using modified blood to pigment their skin, I wonder? That's cursed.
Carotene
Type: Accessory Pigment
Color: Orange or red
Effect on Photosynthesis: Allows absorption of ultraviolet light
UV: Absorbs
All plents probably have this, given how many plents have taken on colors in this range. It would be present in chloroplasts, including those modified into blood cells, which in turn probably means cooked plents--and their blood--turn red/orange the same way lobsters do.
In excessive amounts, this may take over as the main visible photosynthesis pigment, as it has in many algae. Alternatively, it can be exposed by death of chloroplasts in the skin, either intentionally or from disease targeting the pigment cells, producing the color without the photosynthesis.
Xanthophyll
Type: Accessory Pigment
Color: Yellow
Effect on Photosynthesis: Modulates light energy, protects chlorophyll from intense light
UV: Absorbs
Similar to carotene, but oxygenated. Probably good for plents that live out in the sun. (This may also be a necessary component in the diets of some organisms!)
Interesting note: modern nodent species are very yellow, and coincidentally used to live in caves where they would have lost their existing UV protections. Perhaps these pigments evolved not just for camouflage, but for defense against UV radiation.
Phycobilins
As biles, these would be produced as a product of the plent's metabolism rather than produced directly for their purpose in coloration, so they may be better health indicators than other pigments.
Phycoerythrin
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Red
Effect on Photosynthesis: Enables absorption of more kinds of light in dimmer conditions
UV: Reflects
Possibly also found in: Boneflora
Another red. This seems to also be present in some swarmers, where it is erroneously noted as "not interfering" with photosynthesis rather than aiding it. Being red might be good for camouflaging in boneflora, or for some kind of display or warning coloration since it's a pretty rare color on land.
Phycocyanin
Type: Accessory pigment
Color: Blue
Effect on photosynthesis: Allows absorption of red and orange light.
UV: Reflects
Possibly also found in: Glass flora
This can produce a rich blue color. In lower quantities, it may help camouflage against glass flora.
Other
Anthocyanin
Type: Non-photosynthetic
Color: Purple, red, blue, black
Effect on Photosynthesis: Little/none when purple; blocks when black
UV: Greatly absorbs
Anthocyanins are basal to land plents and have been used by many species to camouflage against purple flora. They may fulfill an analogous role to melanin as a natural sunscreen and general darkening pigment.
Warning: purple flora reflect UV light. Organisms which can see into the UV spectrum can see purple plents against purple plants.
Tannins
Type: Non-photosynthetic
Color: Brown, reddish brown
Effect on Photosynthesis: May block in large quantities
UV: Absorbs
Tannins are the reason bark is often brown. It may be responsible for the otherwise unexplained brown coloration of some plent wood, which has some interesting implications. When deposited in the skin and flesh of a plent, tannins make it bitter and inhibits a predator's ability to digest it.
It's because it's nocturnal, yeah. It's also really dark for a lot of the year in parts of its range.
General: Keeping and Losing Flight
On Earth, there's four kinds of flying animals that have ever evolved: insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats. Many insects and birds have lost flight secondarily, but the more observant might notice that as far as we know, neither pterosaurs nor bats have ever done the same. There's a reason for that.
While all these animals fly, the way they use their wings differ.
For insects and birds, the wings are their own structure not used for much else other than flight:
While for pterosaurs and bats, they also double as legs:
This difference in use is massive. An insect or bird that spends most of its time on the ground is wasting a lot of energy maintaining wings that are only used in the air, while a pterosaur or bat with the same lifestyle is putting the wings to work while walking and only expending a little extra energy to make their legs also be capable of getting them aloft. Basically, if you're using your wings for other things too, the benefit of keeping the ability to fly away from predators outweighs the energy cost.
With this in mind, we can probably determine which flighted Sagan 4 organisms are more likely to lose or keep flight. Here I list each living group in order from most to least likely to become flightless.
Flight Easily Lost
Pterophytes have actually lost flight several times independently already, which is quite accurate to what one should expect. Much like insects, their wings did not originate as legs, so they are generally unlikely to evolve to walk on their wings (which would enable them to keep flight more easily).
Notably, pterophytes also have a significant weight disadvantage. They lack air sacs and have four walking legs in addition to the non-walking wings. They also give live birth to developed young. I'm not sure there's any other extant flying group more disadvantaged for flight.
Anatomically basal wingworms which retain legs or some other form of terrestrial locomotion are in a similar boat to insects, though since they aren't fast on foot they may be slightly more likely to keep flight under some circumstances. Similar to phlyers, their wings are separate structures from their legs and don't really serve much other purpose, so they waste energy when left unused.
Wingworms do have the advantage of tracheae, which make them light in much the same way as hollow bones / air sacs.
Skysnappers are in a similar boat to birds in that they are hollow-boned bipeds which have modified their forelimbs into wings. Some of them have/retain hands, which might make it slightly harder to lose the wing altogether compared to pterophytes, but otherwise, unless they were to become quadrupeds somehow, they're about equally as likely to lose flight as birds.
Srugeings are kinda in an odd position. Flight is their primary means of locomotion, but the wings cannot be walked on. However, I can't imagine the wings becoming adapted for much else even if they get more terrestrial, so I'm still putting them in this category.
Wingworms which are obligate fliers lacking any means of terrestrial locomotion probably won't lose flight. They would be instantly eaten. However, they could evolve terrestrial locomotion, which would make losing flight pretty instantaneous depending on their circumstances.
Flight Easily Kept
Biats are wing-walkers to a much greater extreme than pterosaurs or bats--they have no other appendages that could possibly be walked on, so no changes to the limbs used in locomotion would increase the chances of losing flight.
The only way a biat is likely to lose flight is if it exchanges it for a very weight-costly adaptation such as a large fermenting gut--and even that will be a challenge, as they and many other Sagan 4 organisms should have access to cellulase in order to eat plents even as carnivores, which in turn makes them not actually need a massive gut.
Maybe diving / underwater flight adaptations on an island shore could do it.
Unlike biats, gushfliers physically can't outgrow their wings because they have an exoskeleton. Barring exceptional evolutionary circumstances, they're probably not gonna lose flight any time soon.
Certain wingworms such as my minibees which can crawl on their wings are even more advantaged for keeping flight. They simply have no other walking options upon which they could lose use of the flight appendages, similar to biats.
On Earth, there's four kinds of flying animals that have ever evolved: insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats. Many insects and birds have lost flight secondarily, but the more observant might notice that as far as we know, neither pterosaurs nor bats have ever done the same. There's a reason for that.
While all these animals fly, the way they use their wings differ.
For insects and birds, the wings are their own structure not used for much else other than flight:
While for pterosaurs and bats, they also double as legs:
This difference in use is massive. An insect or bird that spends most of its time on the ground is wasting a lot of energy maintaining wings that are only used in the air, while a pterosaur or bat with the same lifestyle is putting the wings to work while walking and only expending a little extra energy to make their legs also be capable of getting them aloft. Basically, if you're using your wings for other things too, the benefit of keeping the ability to fly away from predators outweighs the energy cost.
With this in mind, we can probably determine which flighted Sagan 4 organisms are more likely to lose or keep flight. Here I list each living group in order from most to least likely to become flightless.
Flight Easily Lost
Pterophytes have actually lost flight several times independently already, which is quite accurate to what one should expect. Much like insects, their wings did not originate as legs, so they are generally unlikely to evolve to walk on their wings (which would enable them to keep flight more easily).
Notably, pterophytes also have a significant weight disadvantage. They lack air sacs and have four walking legs in addition to the non-walking wings. They also give live birth to developed young. I'm not sure there's any other extant flying group more disadvantaged for flight.
Anatomically basal wingworms which retain legs or some other form of terrestrial locomotion are in a similar boat to insects, though since they aren't fast on foot they may be slightly more likely to keep flight under some circumstances. Similar to phlyers, their wings are separate structures from their legs and don't really serve much other purpose, so they waste energy when left unused.
Wingworms do have the advantage of tracheae, which make them light in much the same way as hollow bones / air sacs.
Skysnappers are in a similar boat to birds in that they are hollow-boned bipeds which have modified their forelimbs into wings. Some of them have/retain hands, which might make it slightly harder to lose the wing altogether compared to pterophytes, but otherwise, unless they were to become quadrupeds somehow, they're about equally as likely to lose flight as birds.
Srugeings are kinda in an odd position. Flight is their primary means of locomotion, but the wings cannot be walked on. However, I can't imagine the wings becoming adapted for much else even if they get more terrestrial, so I'm still putting them in this category.
Wingworms which are obligate fliers lacking any means of terrestrial locomotion probably won't lose flight. They would be instantly eaten. However, they could evolve terrestrial locomotion, which would make losing flight pretty instantaneous depending on their circumstances.
Flight Easily Kept
Biats are wing-walkers to a much greater extreme than pterosaurs or bats--they have no other appendages that could possibly be walked on, so no changes to the limbs used in locomotion would increase the chances of losing flight.
The only way a biat is likely to lose flight is if it exchanges it for a very weight-costly adaptation such as a large fermenting gut--and even that will be a challenge, as they and many other Sagan 4 organisms should have access to cellulase in order to eat plents even as carnivores, which in turn makes them not actually need a massive gut.
Maybe diving / underwater flight adaptations on an island shore could do it.
Unlike biats, gushfliers physically can't outgrow their wings because they have an exoskeleton. Barring exceptional evolutionary circumstances, they're probably not gonna lose flight any time soon.
Certain wingworms such as my minibees which can crawl on their wings are even more advantaged for keeping flight. They simply have no other walking options upon which they could lose use of the flight appendages, similar to biats.
| QUOTE (colddigger @ Apr 22 2023, 12:41 PM) |
| Should it be that it just knows to attack them on their tail, sauce backs, or should it be something that they quickly learn? How smart are these? |
It's a tamjack. It's smartish.
| QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Apr 21 2023, 05:11 AM) |
| ❤️❤️👍✅ |
Can you please leave useful comments instead of emojis? This is spam.
| QUOTE (colddigger @ Apr 18 2023, 09:44 PM) |
| Do they hunt ballshrog that are down on their luck? Or do they attempt attacking nests? |
Probably prefers unlucky ones.
A ballshrog nest specialist would be neat sometime.
I just realized with hippogryph switching its food pouch to carry babies and shrockal switching its baby pouch to carry food, it's like they've traded
@KXDino8 I noticed you didn't repost your submission to the submissions forum when submissions reopened; you can do so now.
| QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Apr 15 2023, 09:54 AM) |
| This seems like a case of horizontal Gene transfer between the two. |
Cool! How does it get through the nuclear membrane when we don't have any viruses, and how did so many genes get transferred into the right places that they produced this form?
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Apr 15 2023, 09:25 AM) | ||||
Cool. How did the zygote survive and perform meiosis successfully with all the genetic incompatibilities, incompatible chromosomes, and different chromosome counts between the parents? |
And assuming that the meiosis was successful, how do the daughter cells survive when they don't have a complete set of chromosomes from either parent? Remember, unicellular organisms, especially ones that reproduce this way, are haploid.
| QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Apr 15 2023, 08:54 AM) | ||
Morsus and Cilios both reproduce with conjugation. And very possible that hybridization occurred in this step. Morsus…”but they can also exchange genes by fusing together and then dividing” Cilios- “They reproduce by binary fission, but in certain conditions, like overcrowding and environmental stress, they undergo a sexually reproductive process called conjugation. They line up with another ciliognathus and they fuse together. They then exchange genetic material. “ |
Cool. How did the zygote survive and perform meiosis successfully with all the genetic incompatibilities, incompatible chromosomes, and different chromosome counts between the parents?
While microbe hybrids are allowed by the letter of the rule, lots of things that would be rejected are. Can you answer how they hybridized? If not, I'm tempted to insta-reject.
Shrockal (Simiacanis striataiuba) (stripe-maned monkey-dog)
Creator: Disgustedorite
Ancestor: Crowned Treeshrog
Habitat: Maineiac Bush, Maineiac Temperate Woodland, Lamarck Temperate Woodland, Lamarck Highboreal, Lamarck Rocky, Maineiac Volcanic, Maineiac Plains, Lamarck Highvelt, Lamarck Alpine, Lamarck Lowboreal, Lamarck Prairie, Lamarck Steppe
Size: 1.2 meters long
Support: Endoskeleton (Bone)
Diet: Scavenger, Omnivore (Ballshrog, Wingless Florasnapper, Atholat, Lunging Camoback, Maineiac Uktank, Maineiac Glasstower fruit, Pebbleback, Roaming Oropede, Prutarbor fruit, Fruitsnapper, Logcrusher, Fuzzpile berries, Sappy Pinknose, Scaled Srugeing, Spotted Kitshrox, Crowned Treeshrog, Athiwi, Frosty Sauceback, Corvisnapper, Sormsnapper, Coalskin Skywatcher, Snowy Florasnapper, Snow Corvisnapper, Scaled Diveskunik, Pilunoroot fruit, Marbleflora, Sruglettes, Minikruggs, fruit of Cryobowls, Supershrooms, Sapshrooms, Mudfish), Ovivore (Wingless Florasnapper, Tyrannical Corvisnapper, Lunging Camoback, Fruitsnapper, Logcrusher, Corvisnapper, Sormsnapper, Snowy Florasnapper, Snow Corvisnapper)
Respiration: Active (Lungs)
Thermoregulation: Endotherm (Fur)
Reproduction: Sexual (Male and Female, Live Birth, Milk)
The shrockal split from its ancestor and left the trees. It has taken up a scavenging generalist role and wanders Lamarck in small bands of related individuals, eating whatever they can find and sometimes hunting large prey in groups. It is able to compete with large carnivores such as the tyrannical corvisnapper and the lunging camoback, as although it is physically weaker, in the face of too much competition it can fall back on other food sources. It retains the ability to use spears to hunt, though the powerful jaws are also used. It is largely bipedal and has an asymmetrical bipedal gallop using its long tail for balance, but it is also capable of walking on its knuckles. It lost most of its osteoderms for speed.
The shrockal has a striking, colorful crest on its face derived from the front-most crown spike. Keratin covers the top, while the sides are exposed skin, consisting of a structurally colored blue patch framed by skin that can be flushed bright red for communication. The other crown spikes frame the top of its head, which is white, allowing it to also signal to others by bowing. It also has a mane on its neck, which can similarly be raised and lowered for communication. Needless to say, it is quite the social creature with generally improved non-vocal communication. Mane-signaling has replaced the vocal calls to chase and to wait, so as to not alert prey, while other vocalizations remain intact.
The shrockal is nomadic, and juveniles that have graduated from the pouch will frequently ride on the backs of the adults so that they do not slow them down. It is among the few shrogs to completely abandon nest-making, as the nomadic lifestyle is completely incompatible with it. Somewhat uniquely among shrogs, but similar to the unrelated-but-also-bipedal wolfcollar shrog, the shrockal has a forward-facing pouch so that babies won’t fall out, but unlike its distant cousin it’s also the same in males. This is because the pouch has been additionally exapted for food and tool storage when it is not occupied by babies. Only foods which will not spoil too soon, such as fruit, shrooms, and soft-shelled eggs, are stored in the pouch; meat is always eaten immediately.
The shrockal’s social hierarchy and mate selection are both determined by the ability to flush the crest red, as it indicates health. It will select one mate each season. It retains bisexuality, which helps limit population growth. It will give birth to 4 joeys, which live in a pouch until they grow too large. They take about 6 years to mature. To avoid inbreeding, some young males will leave the band as they mature and join others, keeping populations genetically healthy. They can live for up to 30 years.
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.