Feathercombing Gilltail (Plumapossessor insecticauda) (notch-tailed feather-holder)
Creator: Disgustedorite
Ancestor: Common Gilltails
Habitat: Winter: Ofan Tropical Coast, Chum Subtropical Coast, Dorite Subtropical Bay, Ofan Tropical Mangal, Chum Subtropical Mangal; Transient: Always Temperate Coast, North Jujubee Temperate Ocean, Artir Temperate Coast, Soma Temperate Sea, Coolsteph Temperate Coast; Summer: Soma Subpolar Sea, Darkov Subpolar Coast, Bumpy Polar Coast, Soma Subpolar Mangal, Darkov Subpolar Mangal, Bumpy Polar Mangal
Size: 30 cm long
Support:
Diet: Carnivore (Miniswarmers, Scuttlers, Krillpedes, Digging Filterpeders, Grabbyswarmers, juvenile Lesser Bloisters, Hitchhiker Scuttler, Bulky Hammerhead, Rugged Scuttler, Barnapede, Eggorger Swarmer, Frabukis, juvenile Marine Bubblepede, Greengill, juvenile Bloister, Gray Muckraker), Planktivore (10 µm-1 mm), Scavenger
Respiration: Semi-Active (Gill System)
Thermoregulation: Ectotherm
Reproduction: Sexual (Male and Female, Eggs in Rocks and Sand)
The feathercombing gilltail split off from common gilltails. While its ancestors were already planktivores, they had no apparatus for filter-feeding, instead catching individual particles by sight. The feathercombing gilltail has no such apparatus either, but it has evolved to be able to filter-feed nonetheless with a novel strategy--tool use.
More specifically, the feathercombing gilltail seeks the fallen flight feathers of flying saucebacks such as the albedophrey and the hippogryph, usually located near beaches, and uses them to catch food. It can also use pinyuk feathers, but sauceback feathers are preferred, as they are more resistant to water damage. After it finds a feather, it uses its beak to separate the barbs. It then grips the feather with its beak and swishes it through clouds of microscopic plankton. Microswarmers, unicellular organisms, and the eggs and larvae of much larger creatures become caught on the hooklets lining each feather barbule, like a scaled down version of a creature becoming caught in a bramble. The feathercombing gilltail then uses its beak to comb through the barbs and remove the plankton from the feather to eat, which is where its name comes from. This allows it to take in similar amounts of plankton to more specialized filter-feeders, while also not inhibiting its ability to eat larger morsels.
Outside of this, the feathercombing gilltail has slightly longer trailing gill surface to improve streamlining and boost the oxygen entering its bloodstream. This results in its gill exits looking "backwards" compared to other gilltails. It also has a more robust and hooked bill, partly to grip feathers and partly to help it get through exoskeletons.
Much like its ancestor, the feathercombing gilltail is migratory, having distinct summer and winter ranges. In the winter, it stays near the tropics and subtropics of eastern Darwin. It migrates north for the northern hemisphere's summer, crossing a short stretch of open sea by taking advantage of favorable currents and passing through Soma to reach the subpolar mangals of Drake's coastline. During its stay, it breeds, hiding its eggs among rocks and sand, as well as feasts on vast blooms of local plankton, sifting them from the water mainly using albedophrey feathers. It is social and it lives and travels in shoals.
--
once again challenge entries bypass the submission limit, so
Image:
Optional: The gradient sort of suggests the water it’s in is very shallow, maybe 30 cm deep, from a rough estimate based on its length of 30 cm. 30 cm is slightly less than 1 foot deep. It’s basically on the beach already at high tide. Still, because this kind of background in your submissions is likely meant to be simplified, and depictions of the organism itself likely have greater accuracy standards than the background, this isn’t particularly important.
Template:
It doesn’t look like a particularly fast swimmer, which would be useful for such a small organism to migrate vast distances. While in some ways it’s more streamlined than its ancestor, its body shape and beak shape don’t seem as streamlined as, say, a salmon. I suppose this would matter less if it used favorable currents while migrating.
Support: I think support was discussed in the issue of the Redbone Gilltail, which is not supposed to have bones. (Yes, I know I haven’t fixed that yet.)
It’s a bit strange it’s not the default to specify internal vs. external fertilization…eh, we can assume external fertilization by default.
Description:
“Get through exoskeleton”: Materials such as “bone”, “stone”, and “wood” are sometimes referred to in the singular as a sort of mass noun, but using it for “exoskeleton” looks odd. “Exoskeletons” would be easier to grasp.
This is a good soft-retcon of sorts for its ancestors, because its ancestors didn’t seem to actually have a filter-feeding apparatus. If it’s for tiny floating plankton they could easily see, and they lived in high plankton-density areas and had some way of extracting energy efficiency from the process (perhaps gut microbiota or special enzymes), this might be worthwhile, but I believe outright planktivores are more specialized.
I double-checked plausible size ranges for planktivory. According to this site (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136970211730072X), barbule spacing in birds ranges from 8 to 16 micrometers. Therefore, it couldn’t catch anything smaller than 8 micrometers. The upper limit being given as 15 micrometers does suggest the barbule spacing for an albedophrey is 15 micrometers, though, which is plausible.
It being able to catch things up to 1 mm is odd, though. 15 micrometers is 0.015 millimeters, or about 1% of 1 mm. I suppose the bigger prey would be caught on the space between barbs, while the smaller prey would be caught on the space between barbules. It’s not enclosed like a net or sticky like some real filter-feeders’ nets, though, so it prey would surely escape, unless it happens to apply saliva to the barbs when unzipping the feather and ts saliva is extra-sticky (or the prey is so slow-moving it doesn’t need to be stickier than usual).
I’ll have to over the habitats later. It’s a pain to double-check big habitats when I don’t have access to an image editor (temporarily).
Optional: The gradient sort of suggests the water it’s in is very shallow, maybe 30 cm deep, from a rough estimate based on its length of 30 cm. 30 cm is slightly less than 1 foot deep. It’s basically on the beach already at high tide. Still, because this kind of background in your submissions is likely meant to be simplified, and depictions of the organism itself likely have greater accuracy standards than the background, this isn’t particularly important.
Template:
It doesn’t look like a particularly fast swimmer, which would be useful for such a small organism to migrate vast distances. While in some ways it’s more streamlined than its ancestor, its body shape and beak shape don’t seem as streamlined as, say, a salmon. I suppose this would matter less if it used favorable currents while migrating.
Support: I think support was discussed in the issue of the Redbone Gilltail, which is not supposed to have bones. (Yes, I know I haven’t fixed that yet.)
It’s a bit strange it’s not the default to specify internal vs. external fertilization…eh, we can assume external fertilization by default.
Description:
“Get through exoskeleton”: Materials such as “bone”, “stone”, and “wood” are sometimes referred to in the singular as a sort of mass noun, but using it for “exoskeleton” looks odd. “Exoskeletons” would be easier to grasp.
This is a good soft-retcon of sorts for its ancestors, because its ancestors didn’t seem to actually have a filter-feeding apparatus. If it’s for tiny floating plankton they could easily see, and they lived in high plankton-density areas and had some way of extracting energy efficiency from the process (perhaps gut microbiota or special enzymes), this might be worthwhile, but I believe outright planktivores are more specialized.
I double-checked plausible size ranges for planktivory. According to this site (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136970211730072X), barbule spacing in birds ranges from 8 to 16 micrometers. Therefore, it couldn’t catch anything smaller than 8 micrometers. The upper limit being given as 15 micrometers does suggest the barbule spacing for an albedophrey is 15 micrometers, though, which is plausible.
It being able to catch things up to 1 mm is odd, though. 15 micrometers is 0.015 millimeters, or about 1% of 1 mm. I suppose the bigger prey would be caught on the space between barbs, while the smaller prey would be caught on the space between barbules. It’s not enclosed like a net or sticky like some real filter-feeders’ nets, though, so it prey would surely escape, unless it happens to apply saliva to the barbs when unzipping the feather and ts saliva is extra-sticky (or the prey is so slow-moving it doesn’t need to be stickier than usual).
I’ll have to over the habitats later. It’s a pain to double-check big habitats when I don’t have access to an image editor (temporarily).
I was figuring larger creatures were getting snagged on the hooklets and barbules, like it's a thorny bramble. Being chitinous, and sclerotized at the tips, sauceback feathers would be able to do that even while saturated with water.
The planktivory-by-sight soft retcon is inspired by my learning that seahorses straight up hunt individual microbes by sight, not by filter feeding.
The planktivory-by-sight soft retcon is inspired by my learning that seahorses straight up hunt individual microbes by sight, not by filter feeding.
Interesting migratory choice, rare to see.
It would be useful to put the detail on bramble-like sauceback feathers in the description, so as to leave a record that’s easier to find in the future.
I’d recommend adding more detail to their physiological adaptations for migration, or their use of favorable currents.
I’m interested in knowing whether it gets close to Albedophey nesting sites just for a better supply of feathers. (I’m assuming they molt, but weirdly enough, it’s not specified, and there are few entries for “molting” or “molt” on the wiki). They surely wouldn’t shed feathers mid-air or in water (outside of being attacked by predators).
I’d recommend adding more detail to their physiological adaptations for migration, or their use of favorable currents.
I’m interested in knowing whether it gets close to Albedophey nesting sites just for a better supply of feathers. (I’m assuming they molt, but weirdly enough, it’s not specified, and there are few entries for “molting” or “molt” on the wiki). They surely wouldn’t shed feathers mid-air or in water (outside of being attacked by predators).
I made those edits, looks like I forgot to reply saying I did so
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.