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
Mao's Declassified guide on how evolution works; some people don't understand how it works
Topic Started: Oct 19 2017, 10:24 AM (1,944 Views)
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
I would imagine that most people on this forum understand how evolution works, but when I joined the Xenocene project, I saw that a lot of the project was messy, and I kept on seeing the RofC trend, and Implausible creatures. Now, don't hate on the Xenocene because of that. the people who run it are actually really nice people. I actually wrote this rant back a few weeks ago, but never decided to publish it until now, hence the "Declassified" in the title, and the project has improved since then.

So I compiled a list of a guide to how evolution works, so you can make a successful project. I know that guides like this have probably appeared in the forum, but instead of judging on how to create a successful project, it's about how evolution works, and what you need to know.


1. Niches

What people don't' realize is how niches work. Someone made a topic on this very recently, but i'll just make it clear. People seem to have a mindset that says "The niche is open! something needs to take it quickly!". that's not really how that works. Yes, an organism's niche does impact the environment, but that doesn't mean the end of the world, however, it could mean the end of the ecosystem. Look at Siberia. it's a giant Taiga up there. But in the Pleistocene, because of the presence of megafauna, like horses and mammoths, the environment was a tundra, and the reason is that the fauna would stomp down all of the trees. by now, the ecosystem has seemed to recover itself from the loss of megafauna.

Another thing I seem to not see is much Niche partitioning or competition. there was a contest for niche partitioning... and it was...ok? People in general always want to analog each animal as "large herbivore niche" or "small generalistic carnivore niche". it makes sense, but there isn't really a "small herbivore" niche. does it eat fruits? nuts? leaves? or maybe even be more specific than that. It's why you can't find the perfect mammalian analog to a Troodon. Simply, because each animal is speciallized in it's own way look at hadrosaurs, which ate not only food from the ground, but also ate pinecones, rotting logs, and even small crustaceans. People need to be more specific when they describe what kind of niche their animal is trying to do. For example, which sounds better?

A. "This animal plays the role of a large herbivore, eating plants off of the ground"

or

B. "They are a specialized group, with special feeding habits to eat different types of low-lying grasses, ferns, and horsetails off of the ground as well as eating pinecones, foliage from trees, and occasionally eating small invertebrates from dead logs"

See what I mean, being specific about your animals and specializing them will make a more interesting, and more plausible animal.



2. Speciallization


Many animals today are very specialized in their niches, and this kinda goes along with what I said earlier. Making animals more specialized makes then more realistic and interesting, judging that many animals today have specialized features. Think about instead of giving your creature wings, talk about the unique adaptations it has for flight, or maybe for an herbivore, explain what kinds of special features it has for feeding. for example, maybe make a carnivore having teeth meant for tearing instead of ripping, or maybe about the neck musculature in it to tear the meat. and also, AVOID RULE OF COOL. Ive seen this a lot in many speciallized animals. my tip is to explain why it has those specializations and how it helps it fill it's niche in the environment. Also, make sure you explain how it evolved those specializations.


Just remember that each animal is special in it's own way, and needs to have specializations that help in play it's niche. that's why a stork isn't just a long-legged bird. But there's also Generalistic animals. The thing with Generalistic creatures, it that they should have a general, simple body plan, where you don't need to add as many special features as possible.

3. Evolution Plausibility

Well, here is the final step to making a plausible animal. Making sure that each animal’s transition from one niche to another is actually plausible. This seems like a big problem in the Xenocene, where we have Dolphin Axolotls, Ground sloth-like parrots, and giant bipedal carnivorous rabbits. The issue is that when the niche becomes vacant, why would a parrot, out all of the deer, boars, and etc be the one to fill the niche? It doesen’t make sense that such an unlikley animal could fill that niche, especially with animals that are already more adapted to it. Instead of axolotls, think of fish, aquatic mammals, just something more plausible than an Axolotl. I’m Mao, and thank you for reading this guide.
Edited by Mao, Oct 19 2017, 10:27 AM.
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lowry
Member Avatar
ARH-WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 *  *  *  *  *
Mao
Oct 19 2017, 10:24 AM
I would imagine that most people on this forum understand how evolution works, but when I joined the Xenocene project, I saw that a lot of the project was messy, and I kept on seeing the RofC trend, and Implausible creatures. Now, don't hate on the Xenocene because of that. the people who run it are actually really nice people. I actually wrote this rant back a few weeks ago, but never decided to publish it until now, hence the "Declassified" in the title, and the project has improved since then.

So I compiled a list of a guide to how evolution works, so you can make a successful project. I know that guides like this have probably appeared in the forum, but instead of judging on how to create a successful project, it's about how evolution works, and what you need to know.


1. Niches

What people don't' realize is how niches work. Someone made a topic on this very recently, but i'll just make it clear. People seem to have a mindset that says "The niche is open! something needs to take it quickly!". that's not really how that works. Yes, an organism's niche does impact the environment, but that doesn't mean the end of the world, however, it could mean the end of the ecosystem. Look at Siberia. it's a giant Taiga up there. But in the Pleistocene, because of the presence of megafauna, like horses and mammoths, the environment was a tundra, and the reason is that the fauna would stomp down all of the trees. by now, the ecosystem has seemed to recover itself from the loss of megafauna.

Another thing I seem to not see is much Niche partitioning or competition. there was a contest for niche partitioning... and it was...ok? People in general always want to analog each animal as "large herbivore niche" or "small generalistic carnivore niche". it makes sense, but there isn't really a "small herbivore" niche. does it eat fruits? nuts? leaves? or maybe even be more specific than that. It's why you can't find the perfect mammalian analog to a Troodon. Simply, because each animal is speciallized in it's own way look at hadrosaurs, which ate not only food from the ground, but also ate pinecones, rotting logs, and even small crustaceans. People need to be more specific when they describe what kind of niche their animal is trying to do. For example, which sounds better?

A. "This animal plays the role of a large herbivore, eating plants off of the ground"

or

B. "They are a specialized group, with special feeding habits to eat different types of low-lying grasses, ferns, and horsetails off of the ground as well as eating pinecones, foliage from trees, and occasionally eating small invertebrates from dead logs"

See what I mean, being specific about your animals and specializing them will make a more interesting, and more plausible animal.



2. Speciallization


Many animals today are very specialized in their niches, and this kinda goes along with what I said earlier. Making animals more specialized makes then more realistic and interesting, judging that many animals today have specialized features. Think about instead of giving your creature wings, talk about the unique adaptations it has for flight, or maybe for an herbivore, explain what kinds of special features it has for feeding. for example, maybe make a carnivore having teeth meant for tearing instead of ripping, or maybe about the neck musculature in it to tear the meat. and also, AVOID RULE OF COOL. Ive seen this a lot in many speciallized animals. my tip is to explain why it has those specializations and how it helps it fill it's niche in the environment. Also, make sure you explain how it evolved those specializations.


Just remember that each animal is special in it's own way, and needs to have specializations that help in play it's niche. that's why a stork isn't just a long-legged bird. But there's also Generalistic animals. The thing with Generalistic creatures, it that they should have a general, simple body plan, where you don't need to add as many special features as possible.

3. Evolution Plausibility

Well, here is the final step to making a plausible animal. Making sure that each animal’s transition from one niche to another is actually plausible. This seems like a big problem in the Xenocene, where we have Dolphin Axolotls, Ground sloth-like parrots, and giant bipedal carnivorous rabbits. The issue is that when the niche becomes vacant, why would a parrot, out all of the deer, boars, and etc be the one to fill the niche? It doesen’t make sense that such an unlikley animal could fill that niche, especially with animals that are already more adapted to it. Instead of axolotls, think of fish, aquatic mammals, just something more plausible than an Axolotl. I’m Mao, and thank you for reading this guide.
It makes me uncomfortable to think that some people on here may not know these principles and I understand why you've made this guide. I just wish new people would actually look at this before they post as I know the Spex Huides are often overlooked by newcomers. I certainly didn't look for a guide before I started and I wish I new all of the things I do now.
Projects Currently Being Worked Upon:

Karkinos: Where faith meets myth on a world of the strangely familiar.
Under New Suns: The forums own colonisation race! Steep yourself in my lore....

Projects in suspension (for when inspiration hits):

- Galapagaia
- Rich Man's Ark (nice little bit of community spec :P)
- Ichor

Projects for a latter day:




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlphaX9
Member Avatar
Primitive theropod
 *  *  *  *
Mao
Oct 19 2017, 10:24 AM
I would imagine that most people on this forum understand how evolution works, but when I joined the Xenocene project, I saw that a lot of the project was messy, and I kept on seeing the RofC trend, and Implausible creatures. Now, don't hate on the Xenocene because of that. the people who run it are actually really nice people. I actually wrote this rant back a few weeks ago, but never decided to publish it until now, hence the "Declassified" in the title, and the project has improved since then.

So I compiled a list of a guide to how evolution works, so you can make a successful project. I know that guides like this have probably appeared in the forum, but instead of judging on how to create a successful project, it's about how evolution works, and what you need to know.


1. Niches

What people don't' realize is how niches work. Someone made a topic on this very recently, but i'll just make it clear. People seem to have a mindset that says "The niche is open! something needs to take it quickly!". that's not really how that works. Yes, an organism's niche does impact the environment, but that doesn't mean the end of the world, however, it could mean the end of the ecosystem. Look at Siberia. it's a giant Taiga up there. But in the Pleistocene, because of the presence of megafauna, like horses and mammoths, the environment was a tundra, and the reason is that the fauna would stomp down all of the trees. by now, the ecosystem has seemed to recover itself from the loss of megafauna.

Another thing I seem to not see is much Niche partitioning or competition. there was a contest for niche partitioning... and it was...ok? People in general always want to analog each animal as "large herbivore niche" or "small generalistic carnivore niche". it makes sense, but there isn't really a "small herbivore" niche. does it eat fruits? nuts? leaves? or maybe even be more specific than that. It's why you can't find the perfect mammalian analog to a Troodon. Simply, because each animal is speciallized in it's own way look at hadrosaurs, which ate not only food from the ground, but also ate pinecones, rotting logs, and even small crustaceans. People need to be more specific when they describe what kind of niche their animal is trying to do. For example, which sounds better?

A. "This animal plays the role of a large herbivore, eating plants off of the ground"

or

B. "They are a specialized group, with special feeding habits to eat different types of low-lying grasses, ferns, and horsetails off of the ground as well as eating pinecones, foliage from trees, and occasionally eating small invertebrates from dead logs"

See what I mean, being specific about your animals and specializing them will make a more interesting, and more plausible animal.



2. Speciallization


Many animals today are very specialized in their niches, and this kinda goes along with what I said earlier. Making animals more specialized makes then more realistic and interesting, judging that many animals today have specialized features. Think about instead of giving your creature wings, talk about the unique adaptations it has for flight, or maybe for an herbivore, explain what kinds of special features it has for feeding. for example, maybe make a carnivore having teeth meant for tearing instead of ripping, or maybe about the neck musculature in it to tear the meat. and also, AVOID RULE OF COOL. Ive seen this a lot in many speciallized animals. my tip is to explain why it has those specializations and how it helps it fill it's niche in the environment. Also, make sure you explain how it evolved those specializations.


Just remember that each animal is special in it's own way, and needs to have specializations that help in play it's niche. that's why a stork isn't just a long-legged bird. But there's also Generalistic animals. The thing with Generalistic creatures, it that they should have a general, simple body plan, where you don't need to add as many special features as possible.

3. Evolution Plausibility

Well, here is the final step to making a plausible animal. Making sure that each animal’s transition from one niche to another is actually plausible. This seems like a big problem in the Xenocene, where we have Dolphin Axolotls, Ground sloth-like parrots, and giant bipedal carnivorous rabbits. The issue is that when the niche becomes vacant, why would a parrot, out all of the deer, boars, and etc be the one to fill the niche? It doesen’t make sense that such an unlikley animal could fill that niche, especially with animals that are already more adapted to it. Instead of axolotls, think of fish, aquatic mammals, just something more plausible than an Axolotl. I’m Mao, and thank you for reading this guide.
Hello. This is AlphaX9 from the Xenocene project. I just want to say thank you for giving your input so that me and the other artists could improve. Since my project has been getting a lot of attention (both positive and negative) I’m doing everything I can to fix these issues.

1. You’re absolutely right. Even if an ecological niche is empty that doesn’t mean that it has to be filled. The ecosystem would change or remain the same whether or not the animal is there. For example. In the Xenocene project, koalas went extinct in our timeline, however I didn’t go ahead and create an exact koala analogue ( although I’ve failed with other animal groups ). Also I’ll try and be a bit more specific with the type of niches that animals fill to begin with in order to reduce confusion.

2. I’ll try to do a better job at explaining specialized traits of my animals personally. And I will admit that I too dislikes it when my artists create super outlandish animals. It kills me when artists add cool traits to an animal without explaining why they even developed those characteristics to begin with.

3. I understand what you’re saying with the first two, but do you think that the carnivorous lagomorphs should be scrapped?
The strongest of species never survive the longest nor the smartest. But the ones who're able to adapt~ Charles Darwin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Archeoraptor
Member Avatar
"A living paradox"
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I also want to add that this advice ca nactually make speccing more interesting,for example in the niche thing,in acuatic enviroemtn niche partition is very evidentin the ed¡nd there is not a real fish niche for example
maybe if earth was an spec project we wouldn´t have squids or other oelagic inverts,and I´m sure people would make lacentes extinct by thwpaleozoic "to primitive ouldn´t compete with fish"
Astarte an alt eocene world,now on long hiatus but you never know
Fanauraa; The rebirth of Aotearoa future evo set in new zealand after a mass extinction
coming soon......a world that was seeded with earth´s weridest
and who knows what is coming next...........

" I have to know what the world will be looking throw a future beyond us
I have to know what could have been if fate acted in another way
I have to know what lies on the unknown universe
I have to know that the laws of thee universe can be broken
throw The Spec I gain strength to the inner peace
the is not good of evil only nature and change,the evolution of all livings beings"
"
Spoiler: click to toggle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tartarus
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Good points.

Another misconception about evolution that is quite common is the notion that it is progressive in nature. It isn't. Evolution is about adaptation, not "progress" (which is a somewhat subjective concept at any rate). Organisms living today are not any "better" than organisms that lived many millions of years ago and likewise organisms living many millions of years from now will be not be "better" than today's organisms. All organisms that have ever lived or ever will live are merely adapted to whatever lifestyles and/or niches they happen to fill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brobar
Zygote
 *
Hi, everyone, I'm french so please be indulgent with my english.
I created the axolotls, the large ground parrots (not exactly sloth-like if i said it it was to compare the size and not the behavior), and I'm one of the artists who drew the predatorous rabbits (pika actually).

Many points on this post are definitely true, but in my opinion there is something you didn't take into account, Xenocene is 55 million years in the future...
When you say "Making sure that each animal’s transition from one niche to another is actually plausible.", you assume that this animal evolved from their current niche directly to the niche we expected them to fill.
Just like @Tartarus said above, this is a misconception, your 2 points are incompatible, those animals didn't have a linear or direct evolution from their first niche to the last one, we didn't describe all of its evolutionarry "path", so maybe they adapted to other things and became step by step closer to the last one. Example : the pika were isolated in an area without predators, and some of them became opportunistic omnivors, and then some descendants of this group became carnivors. They didn't went from herbivor to carnivors in 1 step like if it was their "destiny".
To go further with the pika example, 50 million years in the past, the apex terrestrial predators were ungulates, how are they felines today, why ungulates are mostly herbivores today ?
If you were living 55 million years in the past you would say "It doesen’t make sense that such an unlikley animal (the cats ancestor) could fill that niche, especially with animals that are already more adapted to it (ungulates). Instead of felines (wich didn't exist back in the day but you see my point), think of ungulates".

Even the axolotl is plausible in some way, (but i'm ok that they would unlikely evolve like this but i did it for a contest, it was not a very serious creation). But i'll try to explain it too, if the axolotl was isolated from the rest of the world in an inner sea, it would most likely be able to evolve a more aquatical shape, the axolotl is already an aquatical animal I don't understand why it's impossible to get back to a fish-like shape, like many other tetrapods group did before them.

For the parrots, you are assuming that they went from their current flying shape to a large ostrich-like shape instantly ? Of course they became like galliformes and then had the opportunity in their isolated area to grow bigger. We saw such evolution countless time in history.
I didn't go outside beaten track with these animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yiqi15
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Well, Brobar, you make a good point. The thing is, you don't exactly elaborate or state why they did so. It would at least be good if you just added some lines about how your species evolved into their current form, or go the extra mile and show a chart depicting the progression.
Current/Completed Projects
- After the Holocene: Your run-of-the-mill future evolution project.
- A History of the Odessa Rhinoceros: What happens when you ship 28 southern white rhinoceri to Texas and try and farm them? Quite a lot, actually.

Future Projects
- XenoSphere: The greatest zoo in the galaxy.
- The Curious Case of the Woolly Giraffe: A case study of an eocene relic.
- Untittled Asylum Studios-Based Project: The truth behind all the CGI schlock
- Riggslandia V.II: A World 150 million years in the making

Potential Projects
- Klowns: The biology and culture of a creepy-yet-fascinating being

My Zoochat and Fadom Accounts
- Zoochat
- Fandom
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pangolin12
Member Avatar
Nerd
 *  *  *
People tend to portray evolution as a direct process. Take the example of horses. Horse evolution is often portrayed like this:

Hyracotherium—> mesohippus—> merychippus—> pliohippus—> equus

When in reality, the process looks more like this:

Spoiler: click to toggle
Edited by Pangolin12, Oct 20 2017, 04:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dragonthunders
Member Avatar
The ethereal archosaur in blue

Quote:
 
Many points on this post are definitely true, but in my opinion there is something you didn't take into account, Xenocene is 55 million years in the future...

I honestly think that this is taken into account, same principles which only vary by the amount of time.

Quote:
 
Example : the pika were isolated in an area without predators, and some of them became opportunistic omnivors, and then some descendants of this group became carnivors. They didn't went from herbivor to carnivors in 1 step like if it was their "destiny".

I should say that emphasize the transition from herbivore to carnivore by omnivorous and the lack of predators for that is good, however, using isolation to justify the lack of predators as the starting point is not really a good choice, at least in the context of the future work which are working.

Isolation does not tend to be completely exclusive in terms to which animals can colonize, you will get the introduction of certain species in one way or another depending on the environment, especially animals that can fly like birds.
In islands is pretty much extreme the isolation, but as far I know, pikas live in mountainous areas, the only thing I can imagine is that these ancestral forms of pikas have been isolated in a mountainous territory is in a plateau or in an enclosed territory surrounded by a group of mountains, and still there exists the possibility that eventually birds like birds of prey may arrive and take the vacant niche of predators.

Is something that should be explained more in depth, the possibility of a lagomorph becoming carnivore is not so improbable, but as described in the example, it is.

Quote:
 
To go further with the pika example, 50 million years in the past, the apex terrestrial predators were ungulates, how are they felines today, why ungulates are mostly herbivores today ?
If you were living 55 million years in the past you would say "It doesen’t make sense that such an unlikley animal (the cats ancestor) could fill that niche, especially with animals that are already more adapted to it (ungulates). Instead of felines (wich didn't exist back in the day but you see my point), think of ungulates".

I'm not sure, but you're implying that the ancestors of the current artiodactyls are those carnivorous ones?
At the same time the ungulates already diversified by that time (the carnivorous branch was one of many and the ones where most actual ungulates came were already there), were practically the dominant herbivores of the planet, so is a bad equivalency.
As well both felids and ungulates are omnivorous in ancestry, so why use them to compare an specialized herbivore like the pika?

Anyway, this logic is a bit tricky, this is to suppose that such speculators believe that the conditions in which the world is maintained at that point of time will be maintained for the next millions of years and will not see disturbances in climate, ecology, geography or the emergence of a mass extinction, however, somebody is going to think in more, probably thinking in some scenario with events and such, in that case it will think which are the groups that could potentially survive and become extinct, and which could evolve, at some point could potentially choose the ancestor of felines as the chosen one, but still think in other path.

Quote:
 
But i'll try to explain it too, if the axolotl was isolated from the rest of the world in an inner sea, it would most likely be able to evolve a more aquatical shape, the axolotl is already an aquatical animal I don't understand why it's impossible to get back to a fish-like shape, like many other tetrapods group did before them.

Is not impossible, but highly unlikely, on the one hand if that sea is salty then you need first that the axolotl can withstand salt water because most but all amphibians can't, there is only one species that support small amounts of salt because it lives in mangroves, and is not an easy transition.
On the other hand, the fish-like shape is not improbable, however it may not be necessary depending in the niches that cover these ones, as well not all marine tetrapods do not develop in such shape.

Quote:
 
For the parrots, you are assuming that they went from their current flying shape to a large ostrich-like shape instantly ? Of course they became like galliformes and then had the opportunity in their isolated area to grow bigger. We saw such evolution countless time in history.

Again, explain how it happen and would be okay. Most of the problems with the examples are the poor or lack of explanations about what drive them to evolve in that way and just a bit of paragraphs describing few evolutionary steps is not enough.


I understand that you or anyone here aren't trying to predict with 100% of accuracy the future of evolution of life or what could be the right paths for any lifeform, but we can evaluate what the situation is presented in a project, as well as the explanation of the organism's evolution to see if it makes sense.
I honestly recommend you guys to read hybrid post on the topic about plausibility, it explores extensively the use of plausibility.
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


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peashyjah
Member Avatar
Bydo
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Mao
Oct 19 2017, 10:24 AM
I would imagine that most people on this forum understand how evolution works, but when I joined the Xenocene project, I saw that a lot of the project was messy, and I kept on seeing the RofC trend, and Implausible creatures. Now, don't hate on the Xenocene because of that. the people who run it are actually really nice people. I actually wrote this rant back a few weeks ago, but never decided to publish it until now, hence the "Declassified" in the title, and the project has improved since then.

So I compiled a list of a guide to how evolution works, so you can make a successful project. I know that guides like this have probably appeared in the forum, but instead of judging on how to create a successful project, it's about how evolution works, and what you need to know.


1. Niches

What people don't' realize is how niches work. Someone made a topic on this very recently, but i'll just make it clear. People seem to have a mindset that says "The niche is open! something needs to take it quickly!". that's not really how that works. Yes, an organism's niche does impact the environment, but that doesn't mean the end of the world, however, it could mean the end of the ecosystem. Look at Siberia. it's a giant Taiga up there. But in the Pleistocene, because of the presence of megafauna, like horses and mammoths, the environment was a tundra, and the reason is that the fauna would stomp down all of the trees. by now, the ecosystem has seemed to recover itself from the loss of megafauna.

Another thing I seem to not see is much Niche partitioning or competition. there was a contest for niche partitioning... and it was...ok? People in general always want to analog each animal as "large herbivore niche" or "small generalistic carnivore niche". it makes sense, but there isn't really a "small herbivore" niche. does it eat fruits? nuts? leaves? or maybe even be more specific than that. It's why you can't find the perfect mammalian analog to a Troodon. Simply, because each animal is speciallized in it's own way look at hadrosaurs, which ate not only food from the ground, but also ate pinecones, rotting logs, and even small crustaceans. People need to be more specific when they describe what kind of niche their animal is trying to do. For example, which sounds better?

A. "This animal plays the role of a large herbivore, eating plants off of the ground"

or

B. "They are a specialized group, with special feeding habits to eat different types of low-lying grasses, ferns, and horsetails off of the ground as well as eating pinecones, foliage from trees, and occasionally eating small invertebrates from dead logs"

See what I mean, being specific about your animals and specializing them will make a more interesting, and more plausible animal.



2. Speciallization


Many animals today are very specialized in their niches, and this kinda goes along with what I said earlier. Making animals more specialized makes then more realistic and interesting, judging that many animals today have specialized features. Think about instead of giving your creature wings, talk about the unique adaptations it has for flight, or maybe for an herbivore, explain what kinds of special features it has for feeding. for example, maybe make a carnivore having teeth meant for tearing instead of ripping, or maybe about the neck musculature in it to tear the meat. and also, AVOID RULE OF COOL. Ive seen this a lot in many speciallized animals. my tip is to explain why it has those specializations and how it helps it fill it's niche in the environment. Also, make sure you explain how it evolved those specializations.


Just remember that each animal is special in it's own way, and needs to have specializations that help in play it's niche. that's why a stork isn't just a long-legged bird. But there's also Generalistic animals. The thing with Generalistic creatures, it that they should have a general, simple body plan, where you don't need to add as many special features as possible.

3. Evolution Plausibility

Well, here is the final step to making a plausible animal. Making sure that each animal’s transition from one niche to another is actually plausible. This seems like a big problem in the Xenocene, where we have Dolphin Axolotls, Ground sloth-like parrots, and giant bipedal carnivorous rabbits. The issue is that when the niche becomes vacant, why would a parrot, out all of the deer, boars, and etc be the one to fill the niche? It doesen’t make sense that such an unlikley animal could fill that niche, especially with animals that are already more adapted to it. Instead of axolotls, think of fish, aquatic mammals, just something more plausible than an Axolotl. I’m Mao, and thank you for reading this guide.
I agree with all of the above.
People really need to start getting this right, even if it means making their creatures realistic!
Discontinued projects:
The New Ostracoderms (i might continue with this project again someday)
The Americas (where in 58 million years from now in the future North and South America has both become isolated island continents)



All Expansions (my attempt at expanding the universe of All Tomorrows by Nemo Ramjet aka C.M. Kosemen, started June 6, 2018)
Anthropozoic (my attempt at expanding the universe of Man After Man and also a re-imagining of it, coming 2019 or 2020)
New Cenozoica (my attempt at expanding the universe of The New Dinosaurs and also a re-imagining of it, also coming 2019 or 2020)
All Alternatives or All Changes (a re-telling of All Tomorrows but with some minor and major "changes", coming June 10, 2018)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mao
Member Avatar
Homo Erection
 *  *  *  *
Dragonthunders
Oct 20 2017, 05:38 PM
Quote:
 
Many points on this post are definitely true, but in my opinion there is something you didn't take into account, Xenocene is 55 million years in the future...

I honestly think that this is taken into account, same principles which only vary by the amount of time.

Quote:
 
Example : the pika were isolated in an area without predators, and some of them became opportunistic omnivors, and then some descendants of this group became carnivors. They didn't went from herbivor to carnivors in 1 step like if it was their "destiny".

I should say that emphasize the transition from herbivore to carnivore by omnivorous and the lack of predators for that is good, however, using isolation to justify the lack of predators as the starting point is not really a good choice, at least in the context of the future work which are working.

Isolation does not tend to be completely exclusive in terms to which animals can colonize, you will get the introduction of certain species in one way or another depending on the environment, especially animals that can fly like birds.
In islands is pretty much extreme the isolation, but as far I know, pikas live in mountainous areas, the only thing I can imagine is that these ancestral forms of pikas have been isolated in a mountainous territory is in a plateau or in an enclosed territory surrounded by a group of mountains, and still there exists the possibility that eventually birds like birds of prey may arrive and take the vacant niche of predators.

Is something that should be explained more in depth, the possibility of a lagomorph becoming carnivore is not so improbable, but as described in the example, it is.

Quote:
 
To go further with the pika example, 50 million years in the past, the apex terrestrial predators were ungulates, how are they felines today, why ungulates are mostly herbivores today ?
If you were living 55 million years in the past you would say "It doesen’t make sense that such an unlikley animal (the cats ancestor) could fill that niche, especially with animals that are already more adapted to it (ungulates). Instead of felines (wich didn't exist back in the day but you see my point), think of ungulates".

I'm not sure, but you're implying that the ancestors of the current artiodactyls are those carnivorous ones?
At the same time the ungulates already diversified by that time (the carnivorous branch was one of many and the ones where most actual ungulates came were already there), were practically the dominant herbivores of the planet, so is a bad equivalency.
As well both felids and ungulates are omnivorous in ancestry, so why use them to compare an specialized herbivore like the pika?

Anyway, this logic is a bit tricky, this is to suppose that such speculators believe that the conditions in which the world is maintained at that point of time will be maintained for the next millions of years and will not see disturbances in climate, ecology, geography or the emergence of a mass extinction, however, somebody is going to think in more, probably thinking in some scenario with events and such, in that case it will think which are the groups that could potentially survive and become extinct, and which could evolve, at some point could potentially choose the ancestor of felines as the chosen one, but still think in other path.

Quote:
 
But i'll try to explain it too, if the axolotl was isolated from the rest of the world in an inner sea, it would most likely be able to evolve a more aquatical shape, the axolotl is already an aquatical animal I don't understand why it's impossible to get back to a fish-like shape, like many other tetrapods group did before them.

Is not impossible, but highly unlikely, on the one hand if that sea is salty then you need first that the axolotl can withstand salt water because most but all amphibians can't, there is only one species that support small amounts of salt because it lives in mangroves, and is not an easy transition.
On the other hand, the fish-like shape is not improbable, however it may not be necessary depending in the niches that cover these ones, as well not all marine tetrapods do not develop in such shape.

Quote:
 
For the parrots, you are assuming that they went from their current flying shape to a large ostrich-like shape instantly ? Of course they became like galliformes and then had the opportunity in their isolated area to grow bigger. We saw such evolution countless time in history.

Again, explain how it happen and would be okay. Most of the problems with the examples are the poor or lack of explanations about what drive them to evolve in that way and just a bit of paragraphs describing few evolutionary steps is not enough.


I understand that you or anyone here aren't trying to predict with 100% of accuracy the future of evolution of life or what could be the right paths for any lifeform, but we can evaluate what the situation is presented in a project, as well as the explanation of the organism's evolution to see if it makes sense.
I honestly recommend you guys to read hybrid post on the topic about plausibility, it explores extensively the use of plausibility.

that was well explained, Dragonthunders. I was going to post a comment similar to that, but I didn't get to it, but you pointed all of the things I was going to point out in it.
As of my gender, I have every gender imaginable, some even inconceivable to your minds. I have every gender in the gender spectrum, as well as ones you cannot envision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Finncredibad
Member Avatar
Edgy and Cool
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I think the biggest problem (at least in my opinion) might be the time it takes place in. It's only fifty five million years in the future, which wouldn't be too much of a problem if not for the fairly outlandish and sometimes implausible creatures that evolved in such an evolutionarily short timeframe. And there's all these different animals that evolved that really shouldn't have ever gotten the chance to i.e. the axolotl dolphins, raptor pikas, and giant parrots. If mammals like carnivores, ungulates, and cetaceans still exist then these animals really have no reason to exist. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore weird and outlandish creatures, but here it seems out of place and jarring. Unfortunately this project suffers from what I call "evolutionary vacuum syndrome", where there seems to be no real ecology, but an evolutionary vacuum where creatures just sort of exist.

One way I think you could solve these issues is to 1) have the project take place further in the future, say a hundred million years, and 2) crack down on creature submissions (A Bygone World did this and they came up with some pretty creative and interesting creatures in a somewhat believable environment). By no means am I demanding this, these are just my thoughts on the project and what might be done to make it somewhat better.
Edited by Finncredibad, Oct 20 2017, 10:26 PM.
Favorite quotes

Spoiler: click to toggle

Projects and stuff
Spoiler: click to toggle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rodlox
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Mao
Oct 19 2017, 10:24 AM
For example, which sounds better?

A. "This animal plays the role of a large herbivore, eating plants off of the ground"

or

B. "They are a specialized group, with special feeding habits to eat different types of low-lying grasses, ferns, and horsetails off of the ground as well as eating pinecones, foliage from trees, and occasionally eating small invertebrates from dead logs"
I imagine the criticism to that, if it were in a project, would be something along the lines of "wow, gee is there anything that critter doesn't eat?"

a nice essay you've given us. kudos on the hard work.
.---------------------------------------------.
Parts of the Cluster Worlds:
"Marsupialless Australia" (what-if) & "Out on a Branch" (future evolution) & "The Earth under a still sun" (WIP)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brobar
Zygote
 *
Tet le Spookfish
Oct 20 2017, 10:25 PM
I think the biggest problem (at least in my opinion) might be the time it takes place in. It's only fifty five million years in the future, which wouldn't be too much of a problem if not for the fairly outlandish and sometimes implausible creatures that evolved in such an evolutionarily short timeframe. And there's all these different animals that evolved that really shouldn't have ever gotten the chance to i.e. the axolotl dolphins, raptor pikas, and giant parrots. If mammals like carnivores, ungulates, and cetaceans still exist then these animals really have no reason to exist. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore weird and outlandish creatures, but here it seems out of place and jarring. Unfortunately this project suffers from what I call "evolutionary vacuum syndrome", where there seems to be no real ecology, but an evolutionary vacuum where creatures just sort of exist.

One way I think you could solve these issues is to 1) have the project take place further in the future, say a hundred million years, and 2) crack down on creature submissions (A Bygone World did this and they came up with some pretty creative and interesting creatures in a somewhat believable environment). By no means am I demanding this, these are just my thoughts on the project and what might be done to make it somewhat better.
Quote:
 
I think the biggest problem (at least in my opinion) might be the time it takes place in. It's only fifty five million years in the future

One way I think you could solve these issues is to 1) have the project take place further in the future, say a hundred million years


Xenocene is from 55 million to 95 million years, some animals appeared during the late xenocene, all the animals on the group didn't live at the exact same period. The large parrots for example, are from the late Xenocene, and appeared 90 million years in the future, i precised it on every submitting.

Quote:
 
I should say that emphasize the transition from herbivore to carnivore by omnivorous and the lack of predators for that is good, however, using isolation to justify the lack of predators as the starting point is not really a good choice, at least in the context of the future work which are working.

Isolation does not tend to be completely exclusive in terms to which animals can colonize, you will get the introduction of certain species in one way or another depending on the environment, especially animals that can fly like birds.
In islands is pretty much extreme the isolation, but as far I know, pikas live in mountainous areas, the only thing I can imagine is that these ancestral forms of pikas have been isolated in a mountainous territory is in a plateau or in an enclosed territory surrounded by a group of mountains, and still there exists the possibility that eventually birds like birds of prey may arrive and take the vacant niche of predators.

Is something that should be explained more in depth, the possibility of a lagomorph becoming carnivore is not so improbable, but as described in the example, it is.


@Dragonthunders, I really can't explain the Theropod-like pika descendant since it's not my creation (it was made by @gredinia). But the early glaciodonts i made, like the carnolepus, are in fact bird hunters, using their ability to jump to catch birds, they were comparable to small cats, like domestic cats. Both cats and birds of prey share the same environment, and sometimes the same preys, i don't think there has to be only 1 type of predators, even if they have the same preys, birds of prey and cats are not on the same niche.
For each preys, we often have many type of predators. Why would birds of prey prevent pika to hunt small mammals or birds ?

Sorry but i have the feeling that you all want to reduce the diversity to the minimum. We are currently living during the 6th mass extinction period and we have much more diversity than you want to impose on this forum.
I don't want to sound offensive, but many huge autors of futur evolution, like dougal dixon, or the more recent (and my favourite) "Demain, les animaux du futur" a french book by Sebastien steyer, went even further than me on diversity. I don't like this new movement of very conservative view of futur evolution, i have a different approach, but of course i'll never create biologically impossible animals, or totally stupid and quick evolution. I'm just against the conservatism on niche filling, there is too much parameter to take into account.

But i have the feeling that you share my point of view @dragonthunders considering your arts, even if yours are on a more distant future, i would probably prefer to draw for 100+ million years but i like this xenocene group and Alpha choosed to put it 55 to 95 million years in the future.
Edited by brobar, Oct 21 2017, 06:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hybrid
Member Avatar
May Specula Grant you Bountiful Spec!

Quote:
 
I really can't explain the Theropod-like pika descendant since it's not my creation (it was made by @gredinia). But the early glaciodonts i made, like the carnolepus, are in fact bird hunters, using their ability to jump to catch birds, they were comparable to small cats, like domestic cats. Both cats and birds of prey share the same environment, and sometimes the same preys, i don't think there has to be only 1 type of predators, even if they have the same preys, birds of prey and cats are not on the same niche.


But pikas aren't specifically good jumpers. Compared to rabbits and hares, they have relatively short limbs. The thing is that you haven't answered is why would a pika become a predator? Isolation doesn't inherently make them carnivores. That's not to mention they do share the same environments with species like cats and birds of prey. Lagomorphs are very much herbivores, it would be have to be a relatively extraordinary event or situation to drive them to become predators. You have not explain what that would be. What happened to other groups, like small carnivorans?

Quote:
 
Sorry but i have the feeling that you all want to reduce the diversity to the minimum. We are currently living during the 6th mass extinction period and we have much more diversity than you want to impose on this forum.
I don't want to sound offensive, but many huge autors of futur evolution, like dougal dixon, or the more recent (and my favourite) "Demain, les animaux du futur" a french book by Sebastien steyer, went even further than me on diversity. I don't like this new movement of very conservative view of futur evolution, i have a different approach, but of course i'll never create biologically impossible animals, or totally stupid and quick evolution. I'm just against the conservatism on niche filling, there is too much parameter to take into account.

This sounds like a huge excuse to not want to explain your creations. Nobody wants to reduce the diversity to a minimum, there is no movement of 'conservative' future evolution. You can go as crazy as you want, what we're curious about is how it evolved. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then it doesn't and is not really considered plausible given the situation. The authors you have listed have been criticized a lot with this, it doesn't really matter how popular they are. After Man is pretty plausible compared to Demain, but both suffer from not a lot of explanations or explanations not making sense. They don't need to be plausible though, they can be whatever they want. As can the Xenozoic. But that doesn't change how plausible predatory pikas, ichthyosaur-like salamanders, or other creatures are in this situation.
If I sound rude while critiquing, I apologize in hindsight!
"To those like the misguided; look at the story of Man, and come to your senses! It is not the destination, but the trip that matters. What you do today influences tomorrow, not the other way around. Love Today, and seize All Tomorrows!" - Nemo Ramjet
ノ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ヽ

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Spec Guides · Next Topic »
Add Reply