'>>4768810
Correct previous thread >>4723566';

'>>4768810
RECOMMENDED READING LIST ON EVOLUTION:
> The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
> The Extended Phenotype - Richard Dawkins
> The Revolutionary Phenotype - J.F. Gariepy
> Evolution and the Theory of Games - John Maynard Smith
> Animal Signals - John Maynard Smith
> The Red Queen - Matt Ridley
> Mendel's Principles of Heredity - Bateson & Mendel
> Population Genetics: A Concise Guide - John H. Guillespie
> The Largest Avian Radiation: The Evolution of Perching Birds, or the Order Passeriformes by Jon Fjeldså, Les Christidis, and Per G. P. Ericson
>The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Douglas Erwin
>Carboniferous Giants and Mass Extinction: The Late Paleozoic Ice Age World by George McGhee Jr.
>Triassic Life on Land: The Great Transition by Hans-Dieter Sues
>On the Prowl: In Search of Big Cat Origins by Mark Hallett and John Harris';

'undefined';

'>>4768830
Dolphussy';

'So, lets start this thread off right and talk about the evolution of proarticulids and what they could've become. Under the idea that they were diploblasts it would be somewhat difficult for them to develop organs but their anatomy gives me an idea on how they could get around this. Since they grow via the addition of isomers and judging by the cephalon they already have the genetic code necessary to specialize body parts, what if they developed organs by specializing isomers for equivalent function? Could this work or am I way off base here?
If you think that just because they have a cephalon doesn't mean they can make other parts, vendiamorpha in pic related seems to have lost their cephalon and evolved a similar structure by partially fusing 2 isomers. So evidently they can specialize other parts besides the cephalon too.';

'Any radially symmetric animals that might be able to make bilateral symmetry work? Heres a pic of a bilaterally symmetrical comb jelly called a platyctenid that lives on the ocean floor, although it's kinda cheating since combs jellies are already the closest diploblast to bilateral symmetry.';

'>>4768810
>Land Whale
Neat but I see those all the time around my local grocery stores';

'>>4768871
I think it could work, sounds similar enough to how siphonophors and other colonia cnidarians form more specialized body parts. Just with a isomer of the same individual instead of a "separated" clone';

'>>4769013
Since it seems likely that petalonamids like fractofusus were colonial then going the siphonophore route for them also seems likely. The problem seems to be that making organs with clonal colonies seems to be a lot harder than making organs how we do. Even the cnidarian with the most types of zooids has like 6 or 7, half of which are reproductive.
The main problem I see with proarticulids modifying their isomers into organs is that it's ruin their symmetry. Another problem I see is that their gut goes through each isomer, not sure having your gut go through your heart is an effective strategy. Not sure how to deal with that.
Actually just had a thought, what if all the organs are at the back? You could close off the gut at the first say dozen isomers and then develop all the organs at the back. Would that work?
Pic unrelated, just thought this guy looked cool.';

'we always speculate about wild animals, let's think up some speculative friends for a change';

'>>4769217
Absolutely not. Domesticated animals are basically cheating, you can justify anything you want with them with "humans wanted it".';

'>>4768853
>too focused on the dolphin pussy to notice she has an extra pair of fins';

'>>4769217
That doesn't really narrow it down. Anything can be a pet if you try hard enough.';

'Earthworm turned into fish';

'>>4769592
How?!';

'>>4769592
Shouldn't the segments repeat more regularly than that

Fishapede?';

'>>4769592
Bobbit fish. What a nightmare.';

'>>4769592
That looks like a bad time';

'>>4769592
Given modern swimming annelids I think they would end up more with an anomalocaris like bodyplan than with a fish like one';

'>>4769612
Worm develops simple eyes, teeth on the inside of pharynx that become actual jaws. The fins are just long tightly packed bristles on a proleg. Granted this is after several million years without any competition from vertebrates in the water.
>>4769640
Each segment has a set of bristles and some are modified into fins while others are used as whiskers near the mouth. The unmodified bristles along the body serves as a lateral line.
>>4769835
I drew one like that but I felt it wouldn't be fast enough for an open ocean predator. I looked at chaetognaths but also swimming mollusks for ideas.

One idea I also had for them was that they have four eyes on their heads so that they can swim with both horizontal or vertical undulation without being disoriented. So the one in the original post can be both a top and a side view depending on the worm's position.';

'>>4770179
Is this for a seed world project?';

'>>4770378
It's the same one with the frogs. Here is some more oceanic fauna. The worms will be dominant because it's easier for them to attain larger sizes than the crustaceans.';

'>>4769835
idk anon ever since i saw this fish-shaped mollusc im not surprised if worms try it too';

'>>4770571
>easier for them to attain larger sizes than the crustaceans
Is this really the case? If so why did arthropods dominate during the cambrian? Weren't annelid worms already around by then?';

'>>4770179
Chaetognaths are indeed a cool blueprint for a larger open water predator worm';

'>>4770586
Consider also capinatator, an extinct arrow worm from the Cambrian that got over 4 inches long.';

'>>4770581
I'm not really sure but I'm just going with the square cube law. These worms will probably have some sort of notochord that can handle a larger size and weight.';

'>>4770605
I mean sure, the annelid axocord might be able to grant potential for large sizes like the notocord did but, wouldn't rather than worms immediately dominating, it'll parallel earth history with arthropods dominating initially while this pseudo-chordates develop a better base to grow off of?';

'>>4770571
You inspired me to continue working on this shark-crustacean I'd neglected for like a year';

'>>4770666
Looking good satan. Reminds me of subnautica's chelicerate';

'>>4770807
Its mostly based on Callichimaera, a cretaceous crab with well developed swimming limbs. And a little bit of Pliosaur thrown in. First thought was to default to some kind of raptorial claw used for striking but thats more of an ambush predator thing, I want this thing to swim around and snatch things up with big jaws like a shark or Pliosaur, so I just made the claws function as jaws.
Didnt think about what this animal could have evolved from at all.';

'I thought about a Sapient Race of small Furry Fish (North American Minnow) descendants called the ǂỹq who run their empire they call ǂỹqũʔ.They share their habitat on an alien terraformed riverine cold desert planet with Moths descended from Ichneutica cuneata and Myosotis macrantha x pulvinaris descendants which dot the surface of the planet especially near the valley streams.';

'>>4770818
I say furry because they are indeed terrestrial and warm blooded by adulthood despite laying eggs in water.';

'>>4770815
They look rather neotenous.';

'>>4770823
>Callichimaera possesses features that are commonly associated with the larval crab stage called the megalopa. This includes features like large compound eyes,[5] a small fusiform body, and thin mouth parts.[2] However, the fossil crabs also show evidence of sexual maturity, suggesting they are adult forms.[2] This species likely evolved those larval features via a process called heterochrony.[2] These crabs were small, with carapace length up to 16 mm (0.63 in), and width up to 10 mm (0.39 in).[2]

You're not wrong.';

'>>4770815
Pretty cool I had forgoten about Callichimaera, looks like they would flail their arms like Portunidae crabs.';

'>>4770832
Do you like my idea for a seeded world orbiting two M-Type Stars in a P-Type orbit? No Trees either because ancestry of Flora combined with the fact the planet's gravity is 1.8 times that of Earth. Really just sprawing cushions/mats with dark leaves/flowers depending on the species.';

'>>4770837
Don't know anything about planets or stars or any astrology for that point, if it works for you go for it. I'm very much an Earth-only guy because the possibilities on Earth alone make my head spin let alone taking into account entirely hypothetical ecosystems.';

'>>4770845
Astronomy*.
Damnit, I was even thinking "don't type astrology" which is probably why I did.';

'>>4770847
No worries I didn't even notice this until you corrected yourself. The planet's surface is essentially a mountainous cold desert with little water aboveground except for streams and river valleys.';

'>>4770612
Yeah that's basically what I envisioned. In the previous picture with all the crustaceans there is the worm in the lower right that is the ancestral form of the fish worms.
I'm thinking that the crustaceans wouldn't be fully replaced though, they'd fulfil the niche of bait fish and such
>>4770666
The claw mouth reminds me of camel spiders';

'>>4768810

Added a new pic for Illyriolestes: https://multituberculateearth.wordpress.com/2022/10/05/iberia-the-tip-of-the-world/';

'>>4770865
Is there anything in the seas besides worms, frogs and crustaceans?';

'I have a question, what leads to the acquisition of high intelligence?
I have an idea that one of the most important traits an animal can have that incentivizes high intelligence is the ability to communicate, that is some ability to not only receive information but send it as well. When I make a list of all the most intelligent animals they all have this one ability, it even explains weird outliers like the elephant fish.
It seems to be a better predictor than ability to use tools since cetaceans have little aptitude for that but are arguably the second most intelligent group on the planet. But obviously thats not all you need or earth would be crawling with sapient species. What other traits predispose animals to increase their intelligence?';

'>>4771239
No consensus on that, it depends on who you ask. Some say it's random and primates just so happen to have a trend towards cranial hypertrophy, some will tell you it was early man's turn towards a more carnivorous diet that led to the development of a large brain, some say it's the complex language-oriented social system we have that caused it, some will say it's the combination of a uniquely arboreal lifestyle leading to hands uniquely well adapted to interfacing with the world that allowed for a more intelligent approach to evolution, others (stoners with a degree) say its because early man used psychedelic mushrooms and it made them uniquely imaginative and intelligent.';

'>>4771245
>>4771239
For me though I think "complex language" and "big brain" is a bit of a chicken and the egg conundrum of which came first. "Animals develop intelligence because of a complex social system and communication" seems like putting the cart before the horse to me. I think animals develop a complex social system and communication once their brains allow for it. First you need the groundwork for that, which I do think lies in a high-protein, partly to mostly carnivorous diet.';

'>>4771245
Obviously some of those explanations have more validity than others.
I'll give my thoughts on each but I'll dismiss the mushroom one out of hand since there are a wide variety of intelligent animals and none are particularly notable for getting high off shrooms.
>it's random
Obviously untrue, intelligent animals share a wide variety of traits. Theres clearly some such as bilateral symmetry into cephalization that increase intelligence, just for example. Intelligence isn't a randomly acquired trait but one that has a lot of steps towards it.
>man's turn towards a more carnivorous diet
Elephants are good evidence against this. Also others have looked into this and an omnivorous frugivore diet is the one that is most associated with intelligence.
>complex language-oriented social system
Focusing on the social aspect, while high intelligence seems to correlate with complex social systems, cephalopods are a pretty big exception to this, the more solitary those are the more intelligent they seem. I would argue language is doing most of the work here, not necessarily social systems, although the former makes the latter a lot easier.
>combination of a uniquely arboreal lifestyle leading to hands uniquely well adapted to interfacing with the world
I argued against this in my first post. Cetaceans are a strong evidence against it.
>>4771249
The chicken and egg problem is a point that needs addressing I agree. I think the best evidence for language ability coming first is the elephant fish I mentioned earlier. Besides it's relatively high intelligence and ability to communicate with electrical pulses it's otherwise an unremarkable fish. It's close relatives are about as smart as any other ray finned fish, ie very dumb, and there's really no other reason the elephant should be the most intelligent of the group. It can't use tools, it's a predator but so are it's relatives, it's social system is pretty weak, it's not arboreal and it doesn't use shrooms. Why then?';

'>>4770818
whenua-4';

'>>4771259
>Elephants are good evidence against this.
> Cetaceans are a strong evidence against it.
neither of those are because those points are only argue for how intelligence developed on primates (arboreal life demanding more processing power to move and navigate in 3 dimensions) and the increase in hominids(the shift to a carnivorous diet, a diet that gives more energy and nutrients per pound of food and is correlated with greater intelligence in other animals, elephants being a notable outlier)

Cetacean and elephants only serve to show that are other paths to developing intelligence. Cetaceans intelligence is heavily associated with them developing echolocation and hunting on groups and Elephants to they need to memorize the location and paths to waterholes. And that's not even mentioning corvids.

> omnivorous frugivore diet is the one that is most associated with intelligence
no, it isn't
most intelligent animals aren't frugivores';

'>>4771341
>neither of those are because those points are only argue for how intelligence developed on primates
In my view any explanation of intelligence should be broadly applicable, not specific to a particular species. If it can't explain why other species are intelligent then it probably has no explanatory power for humans either. Besides, by the time we split off the other primates many of those traits were present in them as well, many primates eat meat and all of them have pretty good manipulators. Why did they stagnate? It seems to me the big thing separating humans from other primates is our complex communication which other primates aren't physically capable of.
>most intelligent animals aren't frugivores
A good portion of them are actually! Pretty much all primates and a ton of smart birds are. Other people have crunched the numbers on this but it is true that omnivorous frugivores have a greater tendency to have higher intelligence.
>Cetaceans intelligence is heavily associated with them developing echolocation
This doesn't seem remotely true to me. If thats the case then why are bats not nearly as smart?
>Elephants to they need to memorize the location and paths to waterholes
This is the first time I've heard of this and its a laughable explanation for why elephants are smart. We know other proboscideans with roughly similar intelligences evolved in places and times where this was completely unnecessary. Not to mention other animals which lived in the same places and had similar needs never did become more intelligent. I don't think advanced memorization even leads to generally higher intelligence, just look at the squirrel. I really don't think this has anything to do with elephant intelligence.';

'>>4771437
>In my view any explanation of intelligence should be broadly applicable, not specific to a particular species
That's assume that there's just one factor or path for the development of intelligence.

>If it can't explain why other species are intelligent then it probably has no explanatory power for humans either.
Again, that assumes that human/hominid intelligence developed by the same pathway or in response to the same pressures that intelligence in other animals did

>A good portion of them are actually!
they aren't

>Pretty much all primates a ton of smart birds are.
and the vast majority of frugivers aren't, with the most intelligent being the least furgivers

>This doesn't seem remotely true to me
doens't matter

>. If thats the case then why are bats not nearly as smart?
they are considerable intelligent for their size range

>This is the first time I've heard of this and its a laughable explanation
so you clearly didn't read much about elephant intelligence

>We know other proboscideans with roughly similar intelligences evolved in places and times where this was completely unnecessary.
no, we don't know about the intelligence of most extinct probocidians and the clade itself developed in more arid conditions, making the memory and it's associated neuronal development associated with intelligence an ancestral trait of them.

> Not to mention other animals which lived in the same places and had similar needs never did become more intelligent.
because they went for different strategies on how to deal with the problem';

'Do you prefer your spec evo to be a story first, documentation second, or the inverse? I'm going to captain a spec evo project here in the next few months and we're trying to decide if it should be more of a catalogue-type-thing or more of a set-dressing-type-thing';

'>>4771548
>That's assume that there's just one factor or path for the development of intelligence.
I never said that, in fact I also gave bilateral symmetry and cephalization as significantly helping intelligence. Obviously theres more than one factor and I never claimed otherwise, but some evidently have a lot more impact than others.
>that assumes that human/hominid intelligence developed by the same pathway or in response to the same pressures that intelligence in other animals did
No it doesn't. Different pressures can cause similar adaptations. This is like saying you can't talk about the effects of flight on birds, bats and insects cause it has a different origin in all 3.
>they aren't
Yes they are
>with the most intelligent being the least furgivers
Actually, you'll find the most intelligent animal, humans, are pretty frugivorous. Certainly not anywhere close to the least.
>they are considerable intelligent for their size range
This isn't true. Pick related. Bats have lower mass brains that shrews despite being larger. Also I found this study about bat encephalization https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/609782/ and it turns out flying foxes, the fruit eating non-echolocating bats are the most intelligent. Seems like a double whammy against your argument here.
>we don't know about the intelligence of most extinct probocidians
Actually we got a pretty good idea thanks to the skulls, we can tell how large their brains are based on this and theres not a huge amount of variation. Or at least none that gives any credence to the idea elephants in dry environments were smarter.
>because they went for different strategies on how to deal with the problem
Besides small animals getting their water from prey, what other strat was there? All the myriad megafauna of africa had no choice but to remember the way to watering holes. There was no other way for large animals to get enough water. Why aren't giraffes and rhinos smart?';

'>>4771548
Reddit spacing';

'Evolution is for fags.';

'>>4771838
It's fun fiction.';

'>>4771839
kek';

'Is the iceberg grounding explanation for the bloop sound the final word or is there really something fuckhuge lurking in our oceans?';

'>>4772549
Yes it's the final word';

'>>4772549


I mean, if ever there existed an environment suited for hiding humongous organisms like that it would certainly be the one that’s only had some 20~ percent of it explored, it was probably an iceberg but I like to believe there’s room for doubt because I want to';

'>>4768853
that's a male';

'>>4772649
I just don't see any hidden giants living too deep for us to detect due to basic food scarcity, a Bloop isn't gonna be able to feed itself.';

'>>4772732
what if it only fed on plants, krill and other microorganisms? would be a funny twist';

'>>4768810
this shit is as retarded as creating new pokemon or fursona lmao';

'>>4772977
No plants down that deep because no photosynthesis. No krill down that deep because they eat plants. The microorganisms that exist down there are slow and not at all numerous to be able to conserve energy as much as possible.

What you're proposing is the equivalent of

>"there might be enormous beasts 3x the size of the largest known sauropods in the enormous antarctic polar desert because we can't explore that place completely! Also, even though there's basically no food there besides some prokaryote extremophiles, there could be a bunch of random food there that is copious enough to sustain an entire ecosystem with an animal large enough to break all the current physical size limitations that we also have absolutely no shred of evidence of except a sound that came from there once that could easily have been a glacier!"';

'>>4773007
Don't forget the sound was actually sped up to make it sound like a "bloop". The original recording is obviously the scraping of a glacier.';

'>>4773305
Yeah but have you considered bigger = slower scientard?';

'That comment was so retarded it almost killed the thread.
Anyway what would you consider the upper size limit for a marine INvertebrate?';

'>>4773588
Depends, do they have an exoskeleton or not?
I think an air breathing hemoglobin bearing cephalopod could rival the blue whale in size.';

'>>4773699
What about other molluscs like sea slugs';

'>>4773704
They'd need to change a lot more than cephalopods to achieved blue whale size.';

'>>4773772
what would it take for a cephalopod to start breathing air and/or develop lungs
a life out of water, and then returning to the ocean at some later point
this sounds advanced, like 400 million years from now advanced, these things could look like anything
imagine orca squid';

'>>4770179
>>4769592

excellent designs just remember that the teeth of the jaws should point inwards, towards the mouth to prevent the animal that was caught from attempting to escape';

'>>4774052
Evidently not as lungfish aren't descended from terrestrial animals but still developed lungs.';

'>>4774325
they are however semiterrestrial';

'>>4774596
Not really, certainly not the ancestral ones that lived in the ocean.';

'>>4774325
>>4774596
>>4774607
popping in now, fish ancestrally have lungs. There were fish without lungs -> some fish developed lungs -> the non-lung (and non-cartilaginous) fish died out, leaving only sharks/rays and lunged fish -> lunged fish left the water to form tetrapoda -> lunged fish developed into ray-finned fish with swim bladders derived from lungs -> most lunged fish died out due to ray-finned fish outcompeting them.';

'>>4774611
I just read something similar, doing some cursory reading. Darwin thought lungs evolved from swim bladders when its actually the exact opposite: fish with swim bladders evolved from fish with rudimentary lungs.

As for squid, I'm imagining some kind of catastrophic deoxygenation event so severe it drives a certain group of cephalopods to try and derive their oxygen from the air rather than the ocean water.
From what little information I can find, it seems lungs in fish evolved from pouches in the digestive system that allowed them to literally swallow air and keep it there, possibly to survive in anoxic conditions in swamps and the like. What anatomical feature of cephalopods might be best to serve as a basis for lung development I'll leave up to any squid experts ITT.';

'>>4774632
I would look at flying squids. They spend time out of the water and could hypothetically land on a shore; if they adapted to spend more time on shore to better escape predators and specialized some of their limbs to better climb outside of the water, a simple salamander-style skin-based respiration system might follow where they need to stay wet and slimy. This would also encourage them to enter freshwater habitats. I think this would be the simplest path for your hypothetical. Plus, if you started with this prompt, they'd have to stay small for a long time, which would allow them to diversify into a large variety of forms before potentially more than one adapted better respiration for the open air that allowed them to get bigger.';

'>>4771560
If it has a good concept that's well executed with names, descriptions and art, then documentation first.
If it has a good story that's well executed with characters and plot, then story first.
In the likely case that neither are realy good, then just choose the one that would make it easiest for you to get started because of being more passionant for it or it having a larger audience.';

'>We need something to fill the giant lumbering herbivore niche.

>Oooh! I know!


Why do they do this? I'm pretty sure tortoises couldn't even be able to grow that big due to their respiration relying solely on muscles instead of their ribs.';

'>>4776138
It hits the same visual niche as giant sauropods, plus there is some history of big-ass turtles, even if the land ones tended to be fairly modest in size when compared to the sea turtles and absolutely dwarfed by most dinosaurs.';

'>>4776138
with how far into the future that program peered, I'm sure they could have developed a superior respiratory system by then.';

'>>4776138
Ive tried to come up with more giant lumbering herbivores that dont have a long neck. Something like elephants. Usually they had at least one long feature though, like this thing.';

'>>4776146
That’s some pretty heavy duty defense
Wonder what preyed on it';

'>>4776199
Giant hyenas that specialized in bone cracking probably.';

'>>4776146
This is cool, I wonder what happened to them...
>The genus is suspected to have gone extinct due to the arrival of Homo erectus
Every single time';

'How come none of you ever told me about this game? This shit is fucking amazing! It's exactly what I've been dreaming about in a game for years! You fucking schlemiels robbed me!

https://youtu.be/wv0rxldQNuk?si=6DioWvR5BL5b1KvI';

'>>4776138
>>4776146
Honestly, I don't mind it as much as I used to. Genetic data shows that Pantestudines are probably part of Archosauromorpha and we know that postcranial pneumatization evolved multiple times in dinosaurs https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25067-8

so maybe at some point between the present and 100 million years from now, you could get a line of turtles that evolve a pneumatized skeleton.';

'>>4777266
Well it also evolved multiple times independently in lepidosaurs (monitor lizards and iguanas) so I think it's possible if the shell's mostly reduced sure, but the trope is just so damn worn out at this point. Plus it's so boring and easy, like wow, you made the slow, lumbering, and herbivorous tortoises that have a propensity to evolve long necks into giant sauropod mimics, huge shocker there.';

'>>4777339
Honestly if you want "future dinosaurs" is there a better candidate than the descendants of monitor lizards? Im considering crocodiles as a close second.';

'>>4777408
One of the more terrestrial crocs begins to adapt towards a fully terrestrial niche? Given enough time and chance to do so, you could once again start seeing animals that would look pretty dinosaurish, even if I'm not sure whether any crocodile relative has adapted a bipedal locomotion since the KT extinction.';

'>>4777224
I've been watching this guy for about a year now and he's made negligible progress. It doesn't look "amazing" at all. I hope that it will eventually be good, because he is laying down good foundations at least it seems, but I think you're easily pleased if you're already that hype for it.';

'>>4768810

Volaticotheres of Lemuria: https://lemuriaspeculative.wordpress.com/2024/04/09/volaticotheres-of-lemuria/';

'>>4777421
can crocs really fucking gallop??';

'>>4776138
They made a future is wild manga?';

'>>4777558';

'>>4777575';

'>>4777575
>>4777577
Damn. They look pretty small though. I assume bigger ones are more sluggish';

'>>4777575
>>4777577
they're so cute';

'>>4777558
Extinct croc relatives could sprint. Imagine dogs with scales. Some got bigger than a polar bear';

'>>4777635';

'>>4777635
I miss him so much, bros';

'>>4777558
Cuban crocs, yes';

'>>4777635
>>4777636
There’s no way these things weren’t dominating the game. Basically mini dinos.';

'>>4770822
I feel like a more swampy american fish like a mudminnow or esox would be more likely to make the journey to land first';

'I got a dumb idea for s specbio project set 100 million years after a nuclear war kills all tetrapod life on land, leaving those niches to be filled by insects, arachnids and gastropods.

Any advice?';

'We need something like this but for spec evo';

'Here's a neat giant cephalopod idea I saw on twitter';

'>>4777926
We'd probably get ray finned fish moving onto land pretty soon like mudskippers have.';

'Intelligent chalicotheres';

'How could you salvage the spineless hedgehog into becoming viable, going with this as a starting point. Assuming wherever they are dropped allows for an initial population to take root.';

'>>4777926
I think the chinese would just go on as normal anon';

'>>4778556
>tank animal
>remove armor
I think it just dies';

'>>4778556
armadillo';

'>>4778556
Expand the skin flap and make it a biological parachute it uses to glide between trees';

'>>4777923
Ignore the autist, he just comes up with "interesting" ideas and posts them once every 3 months or so';

'>>4778541
they look like they'd be incredible bros';

'What would terrestrial kelp (the brown algae kind) look like?';

'How could bats evolve anything analogous to pterosaur's and theropod's air-sacs';

'>>4779318
It'd be very contrived to push for that to happen in a spec evo setting.';

'>>4779513
This.
That said there's nothing stopping a flightless bat from getting huge. I mean you want a giraffe bat, go for it.';

'>>4779318
You could've done so much with bats taking over the dominant flying vertebrate niche from birds, and the best thing you could think of was them becoming pterosaur mimics? Why not something cool and new that doesn't conflict with their basic biology? Spec evo isn't just about turning modern animals into extinct animals but with a slightly different paint job yk?

Many species of bats are already known to live in large colonies and have adaptations to survive ammonia poisoning and diseases despite being exposed to so much of it from their cramped and highly populated living conditions, why not make species of eusocial bat that spreads accross many niches normally reserved for eusocial insects?';

'>>4779647
NTA but how does a bats anatomy conflict with pterosaur anatomy? Especially the early pterosaurs like anurognathids look quite a bit like bats. Hell bats are even currently trending a similar direction to pterosaurs, losing their tails and the more terrestrial ones lifting themselves off the ground kinda like early pterosaurs. I really don't see how becoming pterosaur-like "conflicts with their basic biology" , furthermore they already seem to be trending in that direction irl.';

'>>4779660
NTA but morphologically they're really nothing alike aside from convergently using the same launch techniques. They don't walk, fly or feed the same, they don't share the same niches, they don't have a similar background, and there's no pressures that are pushing bats to be more like pterosaurs. Don't get distracted by passing resemblances.';

'>>4779660
Mostly what >>4779674 said, but the main point was how he was turning bats into the larger pterosaurs which simply isn't possible with the bats biology. They don't have unidirectional breathing, and their bones are full of marrow. I think the golden crowned flying fox reaches almost the size cap for bats as of now. So unless broad sweeping changes are made to bat anatomy, then they cannot fill the same niche as larger pterosaurs or even larger birds.';

'>>4779676
Right. Speaking of bone, I think one fundamental size limits on flying bats is pic related. Look at just how much (non-pneumatized) bone constitutes a bat's wing, vs the singular long digit of pterosaurs and the complete lack of digits in birds.';

'>>4779679
Posted before making my final point, being: bat wings are always going to be the heaviest design of the three, even with hollow bones.';

'>>4779674
See, I think the big sticker here is the launch technique. The reason why pterosaurs eventually evolved the gait they did is because it's the most efficient compromise between moving around on the ground and launching to flight using the quad launch. I think any tetrapod using the quad launch will also convergently evolve gait similar to pterosaurs. Air sacs are much more difficult though. I don't consider the points about niches and pressures valid considering presumably in this scenario birds will be cleared from those niches.
>>4779676
I'd like a source for the size limit claim, even so claiming they can't grow as large is far different to saying they can't evolve to be similar to pterosaurs.
>>4779679
I don't see how this would impose a size limit on bats, regardless even if it does it seems simple to fix just by losing digits.';

'>>4779686
>simple to fix just by losing digits.
I know but evidently bats use all digits for stability in flight, it makes them very good fliers as well but generally evolution is a game of "use it or lose it". What's used doesn't get lost, or even becomes more developed. I don't see why bats might be losing fingers when they're all so structurally important.';

'>>4779686
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/215/5/711/11225/Scaling-of-wingbeat-frequency-with-body-mass-in';

'>>4779691
>I know but evidently bats use all digits for stability in flight
No they don't, they use it for maneuverability. This is important for catching insects midflight in the dark. If maneuverability becomes unneeded, such as in the niches birds mostly occupy, then they could be lost over time.
>>4779693
Thanks for the link. Based on whats said here it seems that this based only on powered flight. A bat could get larger if they take advantage of thermals in the same way condors do.';

'>>4779696
Yeah but they still need to beat their wings during takeoff. So while yes they could get larger to capitalize of off soaring (dynamically or thermally) it would still require anatomy to take off they simply don't have. I do assent that they could maybe get around 50 kilos max if they rely on soaring, but I doubt any bigger than that would be possible.';

'>>4779698
Considering your own paper points out the largest extant birds only reach 16 kilos then 50 kilos is fucking huge.';

'>>4779704
Yeah, but it's peanuts compared to extinct birds and especially pterosaurs. And this thing would be even more specialized to soaring than the teratorns as it would literally be incapable of any powered flight beyond the short struggle of taking off, so it would almost certainly be mostly terrestrial. A far cry from the birds and pterosaurs of days yonder.';

'>>4779708
If we're including extinct fauna then the conclusions of the paper you linked must be flawed since it bases it's math off the comparison of the largest extant bird with the largest bats extant or extinct. Basing it off the largest bird to have ever lived would probably give bats a boost.';

'>>4779713
Why would it do that? Bats have remained pretty much unchanged since they first arrived about 50 mya, and the largest extinct birds like argentavis and pelagornis has the same anatomy as modern birds. Also it probably wouldn't even be able to reach that size to begin with, that would be the maximum potential size in accordance with anatomical constraints, not based on whether or not something like that could survive and thrive. In reality, bats would probably only get to about the size of our largest birds today since they still need to be economical about size instead of trying to be as big as possible.';

'>>4779717
>Bats have remained pretty much unchanged since they first arrived about 50 mya
This is how I know I can disregard everything you say. You know nothing.';

'>>4779724
NTA but we all knew this comment was coming. You wanna draw your lil deviantart monster and post it here and that's fine, I do that, but don't ask for scientific discussion and then get upset when people challenge your hypotheticals.';

'>>4779729
>NTA
lol';

'>>4779732
What benefit would there be to lie about that anon.';

'>>4779733
You tell me, you're the one who lied about it.';

'>>4779735
>i have a cool proposition for that animal lets have a debate
>ok heres two anons giving their two cents and challenging your concept
>wait with bated breath for you to have cool answers ready and see the birth of a nice project
>get huffy answers called detractors liars and ignorant instead
Really letting me down here guy. I've been into bats for a little while too and I'm aching for more discussion around bat morphology, so let's not waste it by getting petulant.
Also the other guy's making me look bad by ducking rn.';

'>>4779745
If you haven't picked up on it yet, I'm making fun of you for disbelieving my NTA but expecting me to believe yours.';

'>>4779735
>>4779745
Also I mean hey you know you've been talking to two separate people for the past few minutes so why suddenly act like you're not and this somehow invalidates the discussion';

'>>4779747
I might be retarded, I don't understand.';

'>>4779732';

'>>4779749
>I might be retarded
You don't say.
You keep talking like I'm the guy who proposed this even when I started off with NTA.
Also I accuse you of ignorance when you show ignorance. Saying bats haven't changed for 50 mya shows shocking ignorance.';

'>>4779755
I wasn't the one who said that though. See, there's why this doesnt matter. For better or worse we're anonymous. I dont even know how many people there are ITT because they removed the IP counter.

I did call you out for calling the guy ignorant for saying bats haven't changed much in 50mya cause instead I'd like to see some actual examples to the contrary of how much they changed.';

'>>4779755
Hi yes it's me TA. I said pretty much unchanged, which is the truth. The only major differences that bats between then and now had were not related to flight in any meaningful way. Not having echolocation and having claws on all five digits instead of just the thumb doesn't impact the biomechanics of their flight and it shows since there's no meaningful size differences between modern and basal bats. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and everyone in this thread knows that, so just shut up already will you? Here, watch a video about it if you're too autismo to do any actual reading. https://youtu.be/tK7g-8B-b1k?si=NUCLsoF1aP3NFtpr';

'>>4779767
>The only major differences that bats between then and now had were not related to flight in any meaningful way.
Well except for the lack of webbing between the hindlegs and the tail, the long tail which the majority of bats no longer have, the shorter limb proportions in general, not just the wings and the shoulder anatomy general being less adapted for flight. Besides all that stuff yeah they're exactly the same.
>citing a youtube video as a source
Come on now. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0283505
>>4779759
Happy?';

'>>4779767
>moth light media
Based.
I've seen this before but I somehow forgot the notion that flying foxes aren't primitive bats but actually lost echolocation and other hyper specialized nocturnal adaptations when they adapted to be less nocturnal, making them relatively ordinary looking compared to the insane shapes of microbats.
Which makes me all the more terrified that my hypothetical fully terrestrial landbats are gonna just look like badgers or something.';

'>>4779771
You know how I know you're talking out of your ass? Because you clearly didn't even read the article you linked and instead just Googled "eocene bat" or some shit and picked the first academic source that popped up. That article made no mention of any of what you were talking about. Even then, all of what you mentioned was irrelevant to the discussion of bats being biomechanically the same when it comes to their ability to fly with my original article in mind, thus being relatively unchanged in that regard. Dude you might as well just watch the video I linked since you're just not capable of looking for or reading academic articles pertaining to the discussion kek.

>>4779775
Yeah they're cool to get a sort of synopsis on a topic you don't really care to dig deep into, or to find and introduce you to topics you would care to dig deeper into, good stuff overall.';

'>>4779783
You didn't even read past the teeth talk
Here, I'll point out each claim.
Shorter limbs
>relatively short forearm and broad wing; relatively short, robust hind limbs
>long tail
for christs sake just look at the actual fossil, pic related.
>shoulder stuff
Again just look at the fossil, the shoulder blades are way shorter and wider than modern bats.
>no webbing between hind limbs
This is the only one thats not in that paper. I remembered reading that somewhere, turns out it's an unsourced claim from wikipedia. Or maybe it's sourced from "The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals", seems ambiguous.
Regardless, even if the webbing thing is iffy everything else is in that if you'd actually look at the fossils and read the paper.';

'>>4779802
I read the damn thing. The only point of note that you brought up was the limb proportions which, again, isn't relevant. And looking at species like picrel (mexican free tailed bat) and other bat species, it isn't even that uncommon.

Tails again are not absent and in fact the Mexican free tailed bat is the fastest bat alive, so this again doesn't impact flight in a detrimental way.

The shoulder blades are comparable in size and if they weren't it would have been mentioned in the article, so clearly it's negligible.

You keep trying to argue this same moot point over and over again when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I have to go to work now and I'm not gonna entertain this shit at least until I get back, peace.';

'>>4779812
They look basically the same to me desu.';

'>>4779812
>>4779802
I think its safe to say they have changed but not in any fundamental sense, because they appear to be pretty stuck in their niche.
From a spec evo perspective all that remains is coming up with environmental pressures to spur the changes you wish to see. Note how suddenly bats seemed to have evolved and radiated, species radiation can happen again once evolutionary pressures like mass extinctions are applied.';

'A general thought about this topic: prefaced with the fact that we don't really know jack shit about early bat OR pterosaur evolution, I do think it's pretty safe to presume that they both evolved flight from a completely different angle.
Bats seemed to have evolved from arboreal climbers who glided. Their entire body plan seems to be better suited for crawling, climbing and dangling, with their sprawled-out posture and everything. Basal pterosaurs ancestors like picrel appear to have been mostly cursorial and ground-dwelling. I suppose this explains why they're so upright and never really lost the ability to move efficiently on the ground somewhat, with all their limbs relatively perpendicular to the ground. This probably explains why they seem to be so distinct in size and evolutionary pressure as well: an arboreal animal that needs to climb and lives in branches will continue to stay small, while an animal that uses the open ground to take off can get as big as its morphology allows. (Not to say there weren't any arboreal pterosaurs, there were, but the arboreal lifestyle doesn't seem basal to the entire clade).

Maybe a great way to get bigger bats would be to have a huge deforestation event coincide with a lack of terrestrial predators, allowing bats to spend lots of time on the ground without immediately getting annihilated. Making them more cursorial over time and less size restricted.';

'>>4779812
>The only point of note that you brought up was the limb proportions which, again, isn't relevant
>the limb proportions of a flying animal are irrelevant
Shiggy diggy
>Tails again are not absent
Good thing I said most bats, not all. Yes some bats are more basal but the point stands the majority either have very reduced tails or none at all.
>Mexican free tailed bat is the fastest bat alive, so this again doesn't impact flight in a detrimental way
Why then did the majority of other bats lose or reduce their tails? Why did pterosaurs do the same? Speed is not the factor you should be looking for but rather efficiency. Theres a reason this is a trend amongst these two groups of animals.
>shoulder blades
Holy fuck did you just circle their collar bone and call it their shoulder blade? You really are retarded. If you actually look at their shoulder blades instead of their collar bones you'd see they're substantially larger in modern bats than the primitive ones.
>you clearly don't know what you're talking about
I'm not the one that can't tell the difference between a collar bone and a shoulder blade. Maybe learn basic anatomy before talking shit about what others know.';

'>>4778253
Nice';

'>>4779813
Guy you're replying to is deliberately being disingenuous. The only thing you can learn from his post is that basal traits can linger on for a long time. Heres a a skeleton of a much more representative modern species, note the lack of tail, longer limbs and not only much larger but much thinner and longer shoulder blades (Circled so no one confuses them with collar bones)
The shoulder blades are particularly important because in bats that's where flight muscles attach to. Small and wide shoulder blades like in icaronycteris indicates a weak/poorly adapted flyer. Enlarged and differently shaped shoulder blades like in modern bats attach more and larger flight muscles. If you want to see the end point of this search up the pterosaur notarium, it's a bunch of fused vertebra in pterosaurs that actually articulates with a much modified shoulder blade (that one I would only slightly blame you for mistaking for a collarbone) which allows for much more muscle attachments and more powerful flight. It's clear based on the way bat shoulder blades have been modified over only the last 50 mya that bats are moving in much the same direction as pterosaurs in this regard.
I kinda went on a tangent towards the end there but hopefully you found it interesting.';

'>>4769053
The problem I see here is could the proarticulids develop eyes or armor or any other things to help them compete with bilaterians if you can't even make organs? You need a lot more than bilateral symmetry to stay competitive.';

'>>4779660
>early pterosaurs
>anurognathids
anon...';

'>>4779839
What I wanna know is how did actual finger size vary over time.
The index finger seems to be reduced, could this continue and lead to a reduction in digits/wing mass over time';

'>>4779820
>Basal pterosaurs ancestors like picrel
I haven't been in this conversation at all but scleronochlus-type ancestors for pterosaurs are complete BS and just the "nearest fit" that we have right now. We don't have ANY good candidate as a pterosaur ancestor.';

'>>4779924
>scleronochlus
*scleromochlus, my bad, typo.';

'>>4779916
Eh, closer to the beginning than the end of pterosaurs. Close enough.
>>4779919
As I said before, bats mainly maintain their digit count due to it offering them greater agility in the air because they need that to catch insects. Bats that don't do this are relatively new in the grand scheme of bat evolution. Bats that eat things that don't fly would probably reduce their number of digits over time.';

'>>4779924
Good point, I did say we know fuckall so I'm just making baseless assumptions as food for further discussion. Their ancestors not being arboreal could still make sense, though. We know so little about what could drive vertebrates to develop flight, and I've seen a lot of criticism around the idea that it's always developed from arboreal "gliders."
Asking for anyone more knowledgeable in evolutionary biology, but did modern birds evolve from arboreal theropods?';

'>>4779940
>did modern birds evolve from arboreal theropods?
Modern theory was that they were ground animals that used their wings initially to assist in climbing and jumping, possibly (probably) later tree to tree. It was a very strange niche that didn't lend itself well to gliding for the most part until the wings were fully developed flight structures, also';

'>>4780041
The assisted climbing idea hasn't stood the test of time, the main reason being that you already have to be pretty adapted for flying for it to work.';

'>>4768810
Could anything cool be done with a tapetum lucidum? I'm trying to figure out a vision hack that make felines even deadlier than they are now.';

'>>4780152
Are you trying to give the freaking cats freaking lazers in their freaking eyes?';

'>>4780200
Just enhanced vision that would enable them to better utilize their reflexes, but now I'm thinking the best change might just be giving them a stronger more flexible lens with stronger ciliary muscles that allows pantherines to more easily focus on objects near and far.
Idk if that would be enough to allow pantherines to compete with similar-sized dromaeosaurs though.';

'Are the elder things good spec?';

'>>4780515
I like em. Sapient non-tetrapod animals are always interesting.';

'>>4780521
Does this mean lovecraft was good at spec?';

'>>4780526
Definitely not what he set out to do. I'd love to hear exactly what made Elder Thing wings good for traveling through space as opposed to atmospheres for instance cause he doesn't elaborate on that at all.';

'>>4780533
That requires a little outside context, when lovecraft was writing the luminiferous aether was still a thing taken seriously. Scientists thought space wasn't a vacuum but rather filled with a kind of matter that only interacted via light waves (might sound similar to modern theories of dark matter) and they thought this because wave particle duality hadn't been conceived of yet. There were also ideas going around at the time that different galaxies were essentially different universes with different physical laws and different kinds of matter. So what lovecraft was proposing here was that the elder things were made up of matter that could interact with the aether and thus they could swim through it like it was water. Easy to explain once you know of the historical scientific context.';

'>>4780515
>>4780526
>>4780533
Like the other guy said I doubt he’d say that was his intention since they’re supposed to be aliens beyond our understanding but it is a neat design';

'>>4780636
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean I guess you could say that spec only really became it's own genre with dougal dixon but there were plenty of antecedents like wells and the rhinogrades. When reading his writing it's clear that he was fascinated by the possibility of radial life becoming sapient.
>They had not been even savages—for what indeed had they done? That awful awakening in the cold of an unknown epoch—perhaps an attack by the furry, frantically barking quadrupeds, and a dazed defence against them and the equally frantic white simians with the queer wrappings and paraphernalia . . . poor Lake, poor Gedney . . . and poor Old Ones! Scientists to the last—what had they done that we would not have done in their place? God, what intelligence and persistence! What a facing of the incredible, just as those carven kinsmen and forbears had faced things only a little less incredible! Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star-spawn—whatever they had been, they were men!
I think if you can call the aliens and future humans of wells and the rhinogrades of steiner spec then you can count the elder things amongst them.';

'A Leedsichthys-sized predatory ray-finned fish, possible?
A non-shark Megalodon, in other words.';

'Have any non-tetrapod fish ever developed a mobile neck? I'm struggling to come up with even a single example (unless you count eels, which is obviously chesting)

>>4780938
I don't see why not, just needs an environment without dolphins or sharks to outcompete something like tuna.';

'>>4781060
Loach :)
But really though, what purpose would such a thing serve in a world where you can very easily orient your body in whatever direction you want?';

'>>4781060
Lepidogalaxias (pic related)
Malacosteus
Some monotypic minnow from Africa I can't find right now';

'>>4782094
Siiick

>>4781858
I was curious if any fish had, to any degree, converged upon something like a plesiosauroid bodyplan, or something. Also I had a dream about a freshwater stingray family with a mobile neck that was the real cause of various nessy-esque sitings across the world.';

'>>4781858
>But really though, what purpose would such a thing serve in a world where you can very easily orient your body in whatever direction you want?
God only knows man.';

'>>4782094
>>4782288
I stand corrected. No idea how I forgot about plesiosaurs, either. Granted, that IS a tetrapod, and doesn't really share the same body plan as a ray finned fish, but that little minnow bastard above already proved me wrong.';

'What, if anything, can you do with these guys?';

'>>4782437
You're starting at square one, so basically anything possible now given enough time.';

'I know varanids are already the favorite child for spec evo, but really, what happens if they develop an erect limb posture? They seem suited to completely dominate the world.';

'>>4782919
Mammals 2: Scales Edition';

'>>4782986
They remind me more of crocodilomorphs but they do have some funny little features. I think their exceptional smell will be really interesting to explore. I could totally see a 15 foot/5m long, 6 foot/2m tall monitor with a giant lower and upper jaw (all the better to smell with their tongue) moving across the land and being corpse disposal. Acting a bit like a hyena, arguably. Or, some developing to use complex pheromones of some sort to leave messages all across their territory and basically planning routes that allow many monitors to occupy the same space but cycling through it so that they never have to interact.';

'https://sites.google.com/view/thecetaceanalternative/the-cetacean-alternative?authuser=2
spec evo project I found';

'A plant that produces very tasty shoots that attract herbivorous
This same plant also produces a very strong and pleasant smell capable of mask the scent of predators, making easier for them hunt in groves dominated by that plant
As a result, those groves are frequently fertilized by the remains of the animals killed there and the excrement of the predators that hang around there more';

'>>4783023
fruit would be far superior to shoots for this';

'>>4783023
I wonder if herbivorous would prefer safe food over tasty.
>>4783052
Does it matter? Something gets eaten anyways. Fruits leaves the body of the plant safer but takes extra effort to grow and can't feed the plant itself like shoots do.';

'>>4777505
>>4777224
in his defense, it's a solo project, and he's never made a game in his life before. I think it's pretty impressive by that metric.
It's not much, but I look forward to seeing where it goes.';

'>>4777505
>watched for a year
>negligible progress
>added aquatic creatures
>overhauled the clade diagrams
>created whole system of seed dispersal for plants, including floating across water, sticking to fur, being spread by animals eating them, etc
>added grasses and floating algae
>added weather, natural disasters, etc
>a wide verity of new body parts
>overhauled the instinct system
>created poison types for plants and poison immunity for animals
>added multiple new food types, different parts of plants, blood, milk, etc
>overhauled the instincts system

you might be retarded, anon.';

'>>4784129
I'm also in indie dev circles. All of this would have been in the initial showing if he had any experience before. I want him to continue working on it, but he's going to have to do a major refactor to make it more than "my unity project #5".';

'>>4768810
>Spec Evo Gen
So wait, tourist here wanting to get this straight. I can post my OC made up animals here for my science fiction world building and get advice from armchair biologists on how to make them plausible?';

'>>4784238
Yeah';

'>>4777505
>>4784123
Usually when the project is half done the new game devs realize big fuck ups that require redoing most of the game.';

'>>4778556
>>4778578
increased subcutaneous fat layer(or something) allows it to fallfrom great heights like a zorb. it escapes predators by rolling down hills';

'>>4784238
that's the whole point of the thread';

'>>4778556
the most boring answer would be putting them in a island without any significant predator
another one would be having them becoming fully subterranean like moles
could also having them becoming cursorial, so dropping the spines to be able to run faster';

'New Kaimere Video
https://youtu.be/l62Tpq29bcA';

'>>4785731
Are those trannies in the room with us right now?';