Sagan 4 Forum [Menu]

QUOTE (colddigger @ Jul 4 2021, 11:00 PM)

Have pupa or their equivalent developed more than once on earth?

It appears not, since holometabolous insects (which undergo complete metamorphosis from larva to pupa to adult) form a monophyletic clade (Endopterygota), which means the occurrence of a pupal stage indeed evolved only once.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Disgustedorite.

This post has been edited by Giant Blue Anteater: Jul 4 2021, 09:41 PM

Alright, so I asked for help with Chilly and Nergali, and they suggested ''Funeyanma'' for the genus name. It translates to "boat-dragonfly". So I think it works well enough for this taxon and its ancestor. What about you guys?

These guys having pupa sounds reasonable to me given how vague the description of their development was from the ancestor.

Having only one example of that lifestyle occurring in earth makes it difficult to back okay methods of it's development.

My biggest problem with it is the lack of detail describing how it happened.

But I also have problems with no description of how these breath either.

QUOTE (colddigger @ Jul 5 2021, 04:38 PM)

These guys having pupa sounds reasonable to me given how vague the description of their development was from the ancestor. Having only one example of that lifestyle occurring in earth makes it difficult to back okay methods of it's development. My biggest problem with it is the lack of detail describing how it happened. But I also have problems with no description of how these breath either.

The evolution of pupas in insects is very specific and very much documented, as the transitional forms are still extant, and it would be implausible for this lineage to take an even remotely similar route for one major reason: cellulose-based exoskeletons can grow and do not shed. It is impossible for anything developmentally similar to pupa to evolve in something that doesn't shed, because a pupa only works because of something that only animals that shed can do--that is, grow entire new body parts under their skin.

Unless the creator of the first pupating species can plausibly explain both how the pupas evolved and why it was advantageous to do so over gradual metamorphosis like a frog (which was the ancestral state, mind you), which I don't believe is possible, I think that all descendants must lose the pupal stage because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous and if possible it should be completely retconned out of the lineage.

You've said that the plent line doesn't have cell walls, which means that their cellulose shells would be more akin to the chitin shells of insects rather than the chitin cell walls of fungus.

There wouldn't be any cells inside the exoskeleton and it would have to be either shed like arthropods or built on like snails.


Hydro was the one who gave them pupa, and his description of it was pretty vague is what I'm saying.

There are animals in real life that have cellulose-based exoskeletons. They are able to grow them continuously without shedding.

There is one group that does, the urochordata.

I suspect that the molting of arthropod exoskeletons has less to do with composition and more to do with function.

As mollusk shells involve chitin but grow without shedding, and crab shells involve calcium but must be molted to grow.

QUOTE (OviraptorFan @ Jul 5 2021, 01:49 AM)

Alright, so I asked for help with Chilly and Nergali, and they suggested ''Funeyanma'' for the genus name. It translates to "boat-dragonfly". So I think it works well enough for this taxon and its ancestor. What about you guys?

Okay, ignore this then

Name sounds good to me, I dunno if they should be in the same genus though but I'm not great at that.

Disgustedorite & OviraptorFan This resolved yet?

QUOTE (MNIDJM @ Aug 16 2021, 01:05 AM)

Disgustedorite & OviraptorFan This resolved yet?

Im not sure, I myself think the Tonbodiver is good but dorite may think otherwise.

This post has been edited by OviraptorFan: Aug 16 2021, 10:06 AM

Disgustedorite Is there a way I could make a good compromise between it's ancestor's reproduction and something more plausible?

Based on this organism's anatomy, it could lose "pupation" in a single step. As can most other "pupating" Sagan 4 organisms, as none of them actually pupate.

Edit: for clarity, all the "pupating" species are basically just getting fat and hibernating in a bed and don't undergo any of the dramatic physical changes that insects do. Shrew saucebacks are doing basically the same thing but with better justification.

But these do go thru some changes, as the larvae look like baseline miniswarmers

QUOTE (MNIDJM @ Aug 21 2021, 01:14 PM)

But these do go thru some changes, as the larvae look like baseline miniswarmers

Exactly