Sagan 4 Forum [Menu]

@Coolsteph could I get a comment from you on these please? For some reason this feels like something you would have a lot of comments on and it'll bug me if there are none. (my plants have been getting very few comments in general, I've noticed)

I've had multiple demands on my attention lately. I think I mentioned that somewhere...I should put that somewhere more obvious.

Plants submissions tend to get few comments. People don't pay much attention to flora or microbes compared to fauna, it seems. I ought to make a guideline on how to ask about flora...in any case, the fact people can simply refer to a widespread genus may very well hurt future biodiversity. Sometimes people make flora just to improve a habitat for a more exciting fauna submission (as seems to be the case for some of your shrog submissions), but it nonetheless benefits other, future organisms.

As you know, I have strict standards on large-bodied genus groups. At least these are small trees, and Robust Arid Ferines and its close relatives (e.g., Arid Ferine descendants) are already fairly biodiverse and exist in a variety of habitats.

Do these all have the same leaf shape? The fact there's only one leaf style shown suggests such.

Bees and butterflies both have favorite colors, apparently. Bees' favorite colors (the ones that are most likely to attract them) are blue, violet, and purple. Butterflies are most attracted to red, yellow, orange, pink and purple flowers. The fact it has a wide range of colors (even among the "common colors" listed) suggests they either have a range of potential pollinators with different sets of favorite colors per pollinator type, or that whatever pollinator genus or type they have has a wide range of favorite colors.

Can you elaborate on the "puffy male spores"?

This is a nonessential detail, but since you asked: you can elaborate on the range of flavors and potential flavor compounds or nutrition of the fruits.

Since many species can exist in the same biome, it might help to elaborate on niche partitioning on soil conditions, slope, shade, moisture, or ability to co-exist or compete with other kinds of flora. I know they're full-sun flora, but you can elaborate: say, some might live on north slopes or tolerate mild shade.

I'll have to get back to this later.

Large flora genera have a size limit of 20 meters, which is not even close to the maximum size for a tree, so to make bigger stuff people have to make individual species. I don't think individual species submissions are likely to be hurt by this. That said, I think that primarily submitting plants and insect-analogues that are not biome-specialized as regional genus groups is probably the best for Sagan 4 long-term because they can withstand periods of inactivity from the comparatively tiny number of people who are actually interested in making them.

My thoughts on genus groups are difficult to explain briefly. They serve a very important purpose in Sagan 4 both from a game perspective and from a realism perspective. For some strange reason, the types of organisms that people are the least interested in submitting just happen to also be the types that are the most specious on Earth, so limiting them to single species submissions not only potentially harms Sagan 4 game-wise but is also unrealistic. These fundamental organisms end up being absent from where they need to be and become vulnerable to sudden, ecosystem-devastating extinction, which ruins the fun for everyone. Plant groups that should be successful peter out from lack of interest and both wingworms and scuttlecrabs almost entirely went extinct from habitat loss.

Though the genus system originally served just to fill in pioneer species, once I joined the project and as I started experimenting with them, I slowly realized their potential to resolve the above problems and represent realistic specious genera. In case you haven't noticed, the culture surrounding genus groups has completely changed. Tons of overly-broad groups have gotten broken up, new overly-broad groups are being discouraged and rejected, and the genus system itself has been completely redesigned to encourage regional groups. This has largely been the result of my own pushing, and it has completely transformed the system from a restrictive mess that somehow allows "these are all the bees everywhere in the world with every diet a bee can have" to something better resembling single-species submission in nearly every way. This is because that is exactly what a specious genus on Earth typically is--it's a cohesive group of organisms with defined biology and behavior that are generally found in a broad region and simply speciate too fast to be feasibly represented species-by-species. You yourself have also had a hand in this change, as we also legitimized a habit of yours--elaborating on a specific species in a genus group as part of another submission--as something actually noted in the rules as a thing submitters can do.

I don't think ferries will be a problem for future tree submissions, apart from there probably being no redundant "x species in Y new location" splits. They aren't, and don't pretend to be, all sun-loving trees and shrubs of their size and habitat range, nor are they all the ferines. They are, specifically, all generic ferries, which are a type of fast-growing sun-loving woody flowering plant with berries and a frond-like leaf structure--and if someone wants something that is not a ferry, they can, should, and have to make it.

--

As for the other comments...

Leaf shapes would be variants of the frond. I ran out of room and decided it wasn't important enough to have more than just a textual elaboration, since it wouldn't vary a whole lot between species.

The flower colors are just flavor at the moment because we don't have enough pollinators for specialization to exist yet.

I'm not sure how to elaborate on flavor. I based it on how some Wikipedia articles I looked at describe the range of fruit flavor in a genus.

I feel like a shade-tolerant ferry would be better for a descendant that keeps the same genus, since that's not standard for the genus group.

Also, any idea on their flavor?

I'm curious how their trunks grow.

On earth that texture on the surface of a trunk indicates heavy scarring from leaf or branch loss.

In the carnofern lineage it seems the trunk grows during hibernation

https://sagan4alpha.miraheze.org/wiki/Rainforest_Carnofern

"During the winter the branches will fall off and a cap will grow over the the top of the trunk. This builds up over the years allowing the trunk to grow taller and taller. When spring comes along the top will open up and allow for new branches to grow."

It sounds very slow honestly.

I must have missed that when skimming ancestors. I'll edit the description to be more in-line.

It's not a direct ancestor, but seems to be the first I've noticed that elaborated on how they actually get taller.

is my edit still okay?

I think it works

Judging by the sheer variety of fruit morphology in one crabapple species alone, the plumleaf crabapple, the genus-wide fruit variation seems sound.

Overall, this seems ready for approval, though I am still a little curious about the preferred soil conditions of the genus.

I have added a note about soil conditions.

The diversity of fruit size and shape is actually based on the cherry genus.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Aug 28 2022, 08:30 PM)

I have added a note about soil conditions. The diversity of fruit size and shape is actually based on the cherry genus.

I did consider comparing it to the genus Prunus (the cherry genus), and briefly checked Google Images about it. Checking Malus came a few seconds afterward, most likely because of residual knowledge on the diversity of forgotten apple cultivars. In any case, what it was based on is irrelevant, since it remains plausible.

I appreciate the note about their soil fertility requirements. It means they aren't too ecologically dominant on Wallace and Koseman, and suggest niches for other flora, or even genus-derived descendants.

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?:narrower trunk, broader leaves,
Internal?:
Behavioral/Mental?: acts as an intermediate succession flora for woodlands
Are Changes Realistic?:
New Genus Needed?: y, though assumed the same the specification of flower structure and diversity of genus suggests to me it ought to be a new genus, and the name that was chosen is nice.

Habitat:
Type?:wallace, koseman
Flavor?:
Connected?:
Wildcard?:

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

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

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

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

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

Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?:n
Does It Fit Habitat?:y
Reasonable changes (if any)?:y, elaborates it uses seeds
Other?:

Description:
Length?:good
Capitalized correctly?:y
Replace/Split from ancestor?:split
Other?:I really like the small bits of information about their distribution, such as low numbers in rainforests as they prefer organics rich soils. I'm curious about the stem formation of the shrub varieties.

Opinion: Approved

QUOTE (colddigger @ Oct 2 2022, 08:04 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?:narrower trunk, broader leaves, Internal?: Behavioral/Mental?: acts as an intermediate succession flora for woodlands Are Changes Realistic?: New Genus Needed?: y, though assumed the same the specification of flower structure and diversity of genus suggests to me it ought to be a new genus, and the name that was chosen is nice. Habitat: Type?:wallace, koseman Flavor?: Connected?: Wildcard?: Size: Same as Ancestor?:n Within range?: Exception?:y Support: Same as Ancestor?:y Does It Fit Habitat?: Reasonable changes (if any)?: Other?: Diet: Same as Ancestor?:y Transition Rule?: Reasonable changes (if any)?: Respiration: Same as Ancestor?:n Does It Fit Habitat?:y Reasonable changes (if any)?: y elaborated Other?: Thermoregulation: Same as Ancestor?:n Does It Fit Habitat?:y Reasonable changes (if any)?:y elaborated Other?: Reproduction: Same as Ancestor?:n Does It Fit Habitat?:y Reasonable changes (if any)?:y, elaborates it uses seeds Other?: Description: Length?:good Capitalized correctly?:y Replace/Split from ancestor?:split Other?:I really like the small bits of information about their distribution, such as low numbers in rainforests as they prefer organics rich soils. I'm curious about the stem formation of the shrub varieties. Opinion: Approved

Agreed

Given TheBigDeepCheatsy is a moderator, according to the rules, this should have been approved already. I would add it myself, but I lack that power for the Alpha timeline.

@MNIDJM, would you add this to the compendium?