Sagan 4 Forum [Menu]

Unusually terse species description for you, Dorite.

Could you elaborate a little more on the sexual reproduction, perhaps clarifying that "small" and "large" spores are meant to represent anisogamous reproduction (if they do)? I don't think "entering" would be the correct term for gamete fusion anyway (unless there's a teeny tiny door that the little one goes through, lol).

Often, my plants have short descriptions.

Ways to expand flora descriptions include details on sunlight requirements, whether sunlight requirements change over its lifespan, whether it does well on slopes, soil and moisture preferences, disease susceptibility or resistance, how long it lives, how many seeds or fruits it makes (irrelevant here), wood strength, wood color, whether it is deciduous, its smell, taste, or presence of toxic or distasteful compounds, allelopathic traits or interactions with other flora, and interactions with other fauna, such as herbivores or pollinators (the latter of which is irrelevant here).

The fact it can bud from its roots and make clonal colonies might mean it can tolerate growing in dense single-species stands, unless it has ways to keep out excessive density. Dense single-species stands could increase parasite or disease susceptibility, which might encourage disease resistance measures. This could involve defensive compounds, perhaps sticky pest-trapping sap, or alerting its neighbor-clones by air or through its roots to prepare for possible pest invasions.

In this case, it might be useful to determine if there's a difference between growing in clay or growing in silt.

You could also mention the affect it has on other Flora competition, and the forest floor beneath them.

Maybe these dense stands suck up all the water resulting in a dry forest floor, packed with their roots, and rather barren of smaller Flora.

It's fun to see these giant horse tail things, at first I thought they were very small.

This post has been edited by colddigger: Aug 15 2022, 09:41 AM

Approval Checklist:
Art:
Art Present?: y
Art clear?: y
Gen number?: y
All limbs shown?: n/a
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: y
Realistic additions?: y

Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: y
Creator?: y

Ancestor:
Listed?: y
What changes?:

shorter narrower faster growing more fragile root budding dimorphic sexual spores prefers wetlands and wet areas
• External?: y
• Internal?: n/a
• Behavioral/Mental?: n/a

Are Changes Realistic?: y ?
New Genus Needed?: (If yes, list why) y, very new reproduction

Habitat:
Type?: 1
Flavor?: 4
Connected?: y
Wildcard?: n

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

Support:
Same as Ancestor?: n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?: y, elaborated
Other?: n/a

Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: y
Transition Rule?: n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a

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

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

Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: n
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: y ?
Other?: sudden dimorphic airborne spores that may merge, elaboration on this would be useful but not actually necessary to pass in my opinion.

Description:
Length?: short
Capitalized correctly?: y
Replace/Split from ancestor?: split
Other?: second paragraph could use some elaboration, first sentence could be broken into two and possibly written more clearly.

Opinion: approved, other than the simple description of the reproduction method, which isn't objectively bad, it looks good.

I...don't think you know what types and flavors are.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Sep 18 2022, 05:10 PM)

I...don't think you know what types and flavors are.

It's true, I generally get these things mixed up which is why that part isn't super rigid for me when looking over other peoples stuff.

The Types are actually 2 and the flavors are 2, but the rest of the checklist is good so I'm approving it