Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Obscure Taxa; For interesting or obscure organisms you'd like to share.
Topic Started: Dec 14 2016, 09:46 PM (48,928 Views)
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

HangingThief
Aug 12 2017, 01:13 AM
Little
Aug 12 2017, 12:51 AM
kusanagi
Aug 11 2017, 11:21 PM
Rodlox
Aug 11 2017, 11:06 PM
kusanagi
Aug 11 2017, 06:56 PM
Besides you can't consider an organism without its phylogeny:
actually, not the point of this thread; an organism's uniqueness can be phylogenic, but doesn't have to be.
Not true: nothing can be unique or different (ie. apomorphic) without a reference point.
Which doesn't have to be classification? Look at my yapok post - it's obviously unique because I state it's the only living marsupial with these features, which is purely about anatomy, and because people know that mammals don't have six digits. In that latter case common knowledge itself is the reference point.
The thread is "obscure taxa", not "unique taxa". Anything that's interesting enough to write a post about is fair game, and I don't consider something to be automatically uninteresting just because it doesn't technically have any major traits that aren't shared by similar groups or species. Every organism is a combination of features that make it something unique.
I have to disagree, if there's nothing weird or interesting about it what's the point?
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Has anyone nominated Trichoplax? This odd organism is a definite animal that lacks bodily symmetry and seems more advanced than sponges, shares with them a syncytium (as in some fungi) and lacks synapomorphies of eumetazoans or poriferans. The are said to reproduce sexually but curiously lack the Broule protein found in other metazoans with a male sex. Although supposed eggs have been observed, they degrade typically at the 32–64 cell stage so embryonic development (nor sperm) have not been observed. Without larvae their ontogeny cannot be compared that of either sponges or eumetazoans. Trichoplax is simply a living plaque that crawls over food on cilia, engulfs it and digests it in what seems to hint the origin of the stomach: Trichoplax sexual(?) behaviour might hint that genetic recombination arose from regeneration prior to the evolution of dioecious sexes: yet if so and assuming Trichoplax nests within Metazoa, how does one explain dioecious sponges? Metazoa is reconstructed as primitively dioecious. A sponge would not evolve from a Trichoplax-like ancestor without degeneration. Morphological data puts Trichoplax crownwards of sponges and stemward of cnidarians. Trichoplax lacks synapomorphies of eumetazoans such as nerve and muscle cells or mesoglea, but shares with them synapomorphies such as epithelial cells and true tissue organisation.
Edited by kusanagi, Aug 12 2017, 11:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Little
Aug 12 2017, 10:48 AM
HangingThief
Aug 12 2017, 01:13 AM
Little
Aug 12 2017, 12:51 AM
kusanagi
Aug 11 2017, 11:21 PM
Rodlox
Aug 11 2017, 11:06 PM
kusanagi
Aug 11 2017, 06:56 PM
Besides you can't consider an organism without its phylogeny:
actually, not the point of this thread; an organism's uniqueness can be phylogenic, but doesn't have to be.
Not true: nothing can be unique or different (ie. apomorphic) without a reference point.
Which doesn't have to be classification? Look at my yapok post - it's obviously unique because I state it's the only living marsupial with these features, which is purely about anatomy, and because people know that mammals don't have six digits. In that latter case common knowledge itself is the reference point.
The thread is "obscure taxa", not "unique taxa". Anything that's interesting enough to write a post about is fair game, and I don't consider something to be automatically uninteresting just because it doesn't technically have any major traits that aren't shared by similar groups or species. Every organism is a combination of features that make it something unique.
I have to disagree, if there's nothing weird or interesting about it what's the point?
Why does it have to be apomorphic to be weird or interesting? The thread is supposed to be about obscure species that some might not be aware of, and even organisms that are fairly "typical" to those who are familiar with their groups will be pretty interesting if you're just learning about them for the first time.
Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Little
Aug 12 2017, 10:48 AM
HangingThief
Aug 12 2017, 01:13 AM
Little
Aug 12 2017, 12:51 AM
kusanagi
Aug 11 2017, 11:21 PM
Rodlox
Aug 11 2017, 11:06 PM
kusanagi
Aug 11 2017, 06:56 PM
Besides you can't consider an organism without its phylogeny:
actually, not the point of this thread; an organism's uniqueness can be phylogenic, but doesn't have to be.
Not true: nothing can be unique or different (ie. apomorphic) without a reference point.
Which doesn't have to be classification? Look at my yapok post - it's obviously unique because I state it's the only living marsupial with these features, which is purely about anatomy, and because people know that mammals don't have six digits. In that latter case common knowledge itself is the reference point.
The thread is "obscure taxa", not "unique taxa". Anything that's interesting enough to write a post about is fair game, and I don't consider something to be automatically uninteresting just because it doesn't technically have any major traits that aren't shared by similar groups or species. Every organism is a combination of features that make it something unique.
I have to disagree, if there's nothing weird or interesting about it what's the point?
You may want to reread what Hanging said. He literally said a combination of individually mundane features can be unique or interesting.

I mean, using your Yapok as an example, neither being a south-american marsupial, nor being amphibious or having a number of digits other than 5 are each in themselves unique or interesting. But the combination is.

Edit: At any rate I don't see the repeated obsession with "but this species isn't worthy of getting an entry here". I mean, this thread has long since evolved into "post interesting species here" and I'm totally fine with that. I come here to learn something new, not to compare each entry with an arbitrary checklist of "obscureness" or "uniqueness".
Edited by Flisch, Aug 12 2017, 02:17 PM.
We have a discord. If you want to join, simply message me, Icthyander or Sphenodon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

Quote:
 
You may want to reread what Hanging said. He literally said a combination of individually mundane features can be unique or interesting.

I mean, using your Yapok as an example, neither being a south-american marsupial, nor being amphibious or having a number of digits other than 5 are each in themselves unique or interesting. But the combination is.

I hardly see how having six digits, being the only living semi-aquatic marsupial, and the only living marsupial where both sexes have pouches are in any way "mundane" on their won. It's interesting because the unique features it has are interesting, and if they weren't it wouldn't be and I really wouldn't care about it in order to think it has any place in this thread. I guess we just agree to disagree on this.
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Little
Aug 12 2017, 03:09 PM
I really wouldn't care about it in order to think it has any place in this thread.
That's subjective. We already had a pointless argument about animals being "obscure enough", and discussing whether there should be a standard of uniqueness is no different. If someone takes the time to make a post here, chances are the organism caught their interest for whatever reason. If you personally found it boring because it doesn't have enough traits that set it apart from other things, so what? Maybe someone else enjoyed learning about it.
Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodlox
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Little
Aug 12 2017, 03:09 PM
Quote:
 
You may want to reread what Hanging said. He literally said a combination of individually mundane features can be unique or interesting.

I mean, using your Yapok as an example, neither being a south-american marsupial, nor being amphibious or having a number of digits other than 5 are each in themselves unique or interesting. But the combination is.

I hardly see how having six digits, being the only living semi-aquatic marsupial, and the only living marsupial where both sexes have pouches are in any way "mundane" on their won. It's interesting because the unique features it has are interesting, and if they weren't it wouldn't be and I really wouldn't care about it in order to think it has any place in this thread. I guess we just agree to disagree on this.
I'm fine with both definitions. its the implications of Kusanagi's statement that is worrysome: something can only be fit for this thread if its cladistically unique is the impression the statement gave me...aardvarks, yes; (o)possums, no.
.---------------------------------------------.
Parts of the Cluster Worlds:
"Marsupialless Australia" (what-if) & "Out on a Branch" (future evolution) & "The Earth under a still sun" (WIP)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Rodlox
Aug 12 2017, 04:42 PM
Little
Aug 12 2017, 03:09 PM
Quote:
 
You may want to reread what Hanging said. He literally said a combination of individually mundane features can be unique or interesting.

I mean, using your Yapok as an example, neither being a south-american marsupial, nor being amphibious or having a number of digits other than 5 are each in themselves unique or interesting. But the combination is.

I hardly see how having six digits, being the only living semi-aquatic marsupial, and the only living marsupial where both sexes have pouches are in any way "mundane" on their won. It's interesting because the unique features it has are interesting, and if they weren't it wouldn't be and I really wouldn't care about it in order to think it has any place in this thread. I guess we just agree to disagree on this.
I'm fine with both definitions. its the implications of Kusanagi's statement that is worrysome: something can only be fit for this thread if its cladistically unique is the impression the statement gave me...aardvarks, yes; (o)possums, no.
That's just dumb.
Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Rodlox
Aug 12 2017, 04:42 PM
Little
Aug 12 2017, 03:09 PM
Quote:
 
You may want to reread what Hanging said. He literally said a combination of individually mundane features can be unique or interesting.

I mean, using your Yapok as an example, neither being a south-american marsupial, nor being amphibious or having a number of digits other than 5 are each in themselves unique or interesting. But the combination is.

I hardly see how having six digits, being the only living semi-aquatic marsupial, and the only living marsupial where both sexes have pouches are in any way "mundane" on their won. It's interesting because the unique features it has are interesting, and if they weren't it wouldn't be and I really wouldn't care about it in order to think it has any place in this thread. I guess we just agree to disagree on this.
I'm fine with both definitions. its the implications of Kusanagi's statement that is worrysome: something can only be fit for this thread if its cladistically unique is the impression the statement gave me...aardvarks, yes; (o)possums, no.
Sorry, Yapoks are unique BECAUSE of their phylogenetic placement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodlox
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Aug 12 2017, 05:44 PM
Rodlox
Aug 12 2017, 04:42 PM
Little
Aug 12 2017, 03:09 PM
Quote:
 
You may want to reread what Hanging said. He literally said a combination of individually mundane features can be unique or interesting.

I mean, using your Yapok as an example, neither being a south-american marsupial, nor being amphibious or having a number of digits other than 5 are each in themselves unique or interesting. But the combination is.

I hardly see how having six digits, being the only living semi-aquatic marsupial, and the only living marsupial where both sexes have pouches are in any way "mundane" on their won. It's interesting because the unique features it has are interesting, and if they weren't it wouldn't be and I really wouldn't care about it in order to think it has any place in this thread. I guess we just agree to disagree on this.
I'm fine with both definitions. its the implications of Kusanagi's statement that is worrysome: something can only be fit for this thread if its cladistically unique is the impression the statement gave me...aardvarks, yes; (o)possums, no.
Sorry, Yapoks are unique BECAUSE of their phylogenetic placement.
i'm sorry, I clearly missed all the articles and books about the other amphibious and semi-aquatic marsupials; perhaps you can name a few? much appreciated.
.---------------------------------------------.
Parts of the Cluster Worlds:
"Marsupialless Australia" (what-if) & "Out on a Branch" (future evolution) & "The Earth under a still sun" (WIP)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dragonthunders
Member Avatar
The ethereal archosaur in blue

I feel that the Yapok discussion is a waste of time and should stop, we have established the consensus of what this topic is about and with what purpose people are publishing species, it seems too farfetched to continue to mark what makes such animal "unique".

Quote:
 
Besides you can't consider an organism without its phylogeny

I must say, I had never said anything against this, I was more worried that you would continue with IIGS generating huge quoted text walls of cladistic discussions on this topic since in many of your talks tends to post with huge amounts of text, continuously quoting each other even if the previous post is near and isnt cut by other post, and in some cases coming out of the main topic and discussing things that are not relevant for the main topic.

Quote:
 
Not true: nothing can be unique or different (ie. apomorphic) without a reference point.

So pufferfishes making elaborate nests in the sand with interesting geometric will not be worth to be unique if I do not establish the phylogeny of the group to which it belongs?

Projects

"Active" projects

The Future is Far
Welcome to the next chapters of the evolution of life on earth, travel the across the earth on a journey that goes beyond the limits, a billion years of future history in the making.

The SE giants project
Wonder what is the big of the big on speculative evolution? no problem, here is the answer

Coming one day
Age of Mankind
Humanity fate and its possible finals.

The Long Cosmic Journey
The history outside our world.

The alternative paths
The multiverse, the final frontier...

Holocene park: Welcome to the biggest adventure of the last 215 million years, where the age of mammals comes to life again!
Cambrian mars: An interesting experiment on an unprecedented scale, the life of a particular and important period in the history of our planet, the cambric life, has been transported to a terraformed and habitable mars in an alternative past.
Two different paths, two different worlds, but same life and same weirdness.




My deviantart


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
You seem to be misunderstanding my position if you think i am saying there cant be an unusually interesting pufferfish. If some pufferfish is interesting because it makes geometric nests, it is only so because such is apomorphic among pufferfish. Which is a statement of phylogenetic context, si? And if the whole group is interesting because it inflates or has a beak or whatever, that is also a matter of phylogenetic context, si?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodlox
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Aug 13 2017, 06:32 AM
If some pufferfish is interesting because it makes geometric nests, it is only so because such is apomorphic among pufferfish. Which is a statement of phylogenetic context, si?
behaviors can differ without even being different subspecies, so no.
.---------------------------------------------.
Parts of the Cluster Worlds:
"Marsupialless Australia" (what-if) & "Out on a Branch" (future evolution) & "The Earth under a still sun" (WIP)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kusanagi
Adolescent
 *  *  *  *  *
Rodlox
Aug 13 2017, 11:16 AM
kusanagi
Aug 13 2017, 06:32 AM
If some pufferfish is interesting because it makes geometric nests, it is only so because such is apomorphic among pufferfish. Which is a statement of phylogenetic context, si?
behaviors can differ without even being different subspecies, so no.
Subspecies are taxa, taxa are arbitrary and in any case taxonomy is just the labels, population is what counts. Think how different bushmen and pygmies are to everyone else. Or more shocking still, the natural differences between dog breeds though selective breeders did not engineer the most striking ones, like vegetarian dogs in Polynesia, the climbing telomian and the like... I do not need to point out the importance of domestic animal diversity for understandiing evolution as Darwin did two centuries ago. Taxonomy =/= phylogeny. If its unusual it stands out from its closest relatives (if they are even known).
Edited by kusanagi, Aug 13 2017, 11:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodlox
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
kusanagi
Aug 13 2017, 11:20 AM
Rodlox
Aug 13 2017, 11:16 AM
kusanagi
Aug 13 2017, 06:32 AM
If some pufferfish is interesting because it makes geometric nests, it is only so because such is apomorphic among pufferfish. Which is a statement of phylogenetic context, si?
behaviors can differ without even being different subspecies, so no.
Subspecies are taxa, taxa are arbitrary and in any case taxonomy is just the labels, population is what counts. Think how different bushmen and pygmies are to everyone else. Or more shocking still, the natural differences between dog breeds though selective breeders did not engineer the most striking ones, like vegetarian dogs in Polynesia, the climbing telomian and the like... I do not need to point out the importance of domestic animal diversity for understandiing evolution as Darwin did two centuries ago. Taxonomy =/= phylogeny. If its unusual it stands out from its closest relatives (if they are even known).
please stop moving the goalposts.
.---------------------------------------------.
Parts of the Cluster Worlds:
"Marsupialless Australia" (what-if) & "Out on a Branch" (future evolution) & "The Earth under a still sun" (WIP)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
3 users reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Members: Yiqi15, lamna
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science Central · Next Topic »
Add Reply