Sagan 4 Forum [Menu]

So I now realize I wrote the topic title wrong, I don't see a way for me to fix that so let me write it here again (even tho it's huge on the image) this is for Gen 166.

Edit: Figured out the full edit button exists

This post has been edited by Jvirus: Aug 2 2022, 05:56 AM

I now wonder about the support and respiration of this group of critters

I mean, it's just a beakworm, so I think you could just look to its ancestors to see how this one might breathe.

QUOTE (Cube67 @ Aug 16 2022, 12:15 AM)

I mean, it's just a beakworm, so I think you could just look to its ancestors to see how this one might breathe.

As far as I know gills in beakworms didn't evolve until gilltails and such. The ancestor for this one also breaths through its skin, so I assume that's a basal thing.

Support I think is a harder question, at least from what I know. I know there's a gilltail that shows an internal skeleton made of chitin iirc, but before that I'm not exactly sure. Maybe waterworms have a very simple endoskeleton, given that they're more primitive than their living relatives?

QUOTE (Jvirus @ Aug 26 2022, 09:41 PM)

QUOTE (Cube67 @ Aug 16 2022, 12:15 AM) I mean, it's just a beakworm, so I think you could just look to its ancestors to see how this one might breathe. As far as I know gills in beakworms didn't evolve until gilltails and such. The ancestor for this one also breaths through its skin, so I assume that's a basal thing. Support I think is a harder question, at least from what I know. I know there's a gilltail that shows an internal skeleton made of chitin iirc, but before that I'm not exactly sure. Maybe waterworms have a very simple endoskeleton, given that they're more primitive than their living relatives?

This provides more proof that i need to start doing the redraw series on beakworms

Beakworms never had endoskeletons and the ones that randomly have them got there from misinterpretation

@Coolsteph any chance you could do your usual comments on this?

"Respiration: Cutaneous"

passive?


ancestor says

"To help with breathing while almost entirely buried, the periscope waterworm has adapted specialized pores on top of its head. These pores are larger than the average ones which cover the body and allow greater oxygen intake through the skin while buried."

would it not continue to involve this specialized equipment?

This post has been edited by colddigger: Oct 4 2022, 08:36 PM

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?:
External?: eyes form hammerhead shape
Internal?: ovoviparious
Behavioral/Mental?: swims upside down
Are Changes Realistic?: y
New Genus Needed?: new reproduction method, eyes arranged different

Habitat:
Type?:1
Flavor?:1
Connected?:
Wildcard?:

Size:
Same as Ancestor?:n
Within range?:y
Exception?:

Support:
Same as Ancestor?:y
Does It Fit Habitat?:n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?:
Other?:

Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: y? needs to actually list what form of diet.
Transition Rule?:
Reasonable changes (if any)?:

Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: n
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: y, elaboration
Other?: should specify if passive, ancestor states it is covered in pores, with large ones on head.

Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: n
Does It Fit Habitat?:y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: elaborated
Other?:

Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?:n
Does It Fit Habitat?:y
Reasonable changes (if any)?:y
Other?:

Description:
Length?: okay
Capitalized correctly?: y
Replace/Split from ancestor?: split
Other?: diet needs specifying, respiration needs specifying.

Opinion: pending, needs specifications.

@Jvirus Any chance you can answer Colddigger's questions here too?

I don't know if I need to add anything in the description about the respiration besides implying its the same as the ancestor. If not this should be good.

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

QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 18 2022, 04:29 PM)

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

Done

Approved