Felarya

Felarya forum
 
HomeFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog in

Share | 
 

 Should sub-species be put into heir own pages

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 8:59 am

Quote :
is based on them, but saying "emerald tree naga" is rather iffy. You could simply say "Arboreal naga", and writing their entry, you mention that Arboreal nagas are known for the green tones on their scales, long tail to help them curl and lunge down branches, etc. I'm not against basing things off of real life, but it would feel more fantasy-like by using a different term that more or less means the same thing as the real species.

I just used Emerald Tree Naga as a placeholder. All of this is hardly set in stone. We could use made up names, sure. I honestly wouldn't mind taking out the genus if each character had a defined species. That, in itself, would add a lot more variety, and encourage people to create their own species (or adhere to an established one), instead of making a character just a generic naga/dridder/fairy/mermaid, etc.

Quote :
The part with the fairies, I don't like the species of "broad" or "narrow" wings, since the "Mist, Canopy" variety works well already."

Once again, just placeholders on a random idea.

I'd be fine with them having a more interesting species name. Mist Fairies and Canopy Fairies are unique species though. We still need names for Fairies like Temi, Aya, Lily, and all the other Fairies that right now are just called "regular fairies" because they are not Canopy Fairies, or hybrids, or something else like Melany. Differentiating them by their wings seemed like a good idea to me, since we do that with some species of insects today.

Quote :
Broad like Moth/Butterfly/Mayfly. Narrow like Dragonfly/Damselfly. Medium like Bee/Wasp/Hornet. Also, given the weird nature of fairies, saying "Giant Fairy" is a misnomer since they have no true default size.

Once again, idea was thought up in 15 minutes as an example. But yes, giant fairy is a bit of a misnomer. There aren't really "normal sized" or "tiny" fairies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 9:22 am

Technically, some rare fairies like Lily can't size-shift, so I guess Giant Fairy has some basis.

If I may suggest something about the nagas, maybe different species of nagas have a natural affinity toward a few of elements. For example, let's say that Vivian is a River naga, river nagas may have a natural affinity for water magic, among other other ones like ice magic I suppose. Let's say that Fiona is an Arboreal naga, and that instead of having a natural talent for wind magic, she had talent for fire magic. This would be seen as very rare among her race, but not impossible.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 9:35 am

Quote :
Technically, some rare fairies like Lily can't size-shift, so I guess Giant Fairy has some basis

Hmm, true. Although, I always assumed she couldn't size-shift because of her trauma, or because she focused so much on combat magic. Only karbo really knows the answer to that one though.

Quote :
If I may suggest something about the nagas, maybe different species of nagas have a natural affinity toward a few of elements. For example, let's say that Vivian is a River naga, river nagas may have a natural affinity for water magic, among other other ones like ice magic I suppose. Let's say that Fiona is an Arboreal naga, and that instead of having a natural talent for wind magic, she had talent for fire magic. This would be seen as very rare among her race, but not impossible.

That sounds reasonable enough. Magic then becomes a trait that is part of the character's species...instead of being what defines their species. Makes more sense, and allows flexability as well.

My main issue with the current nagas is that, well, they don't really have a species for the most part. They're grouped by their elements, even if they are wildly different physically.

The "standard fairies" kind of all into this problem as well, since there are quite a few that are neither canopy fairies, mist fairies, or fairy/elemental hybrids.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 9:44 am

There are hydranagas and diamond nagas, but that's about it. Personally, I'd relegate pit nagas to another type of demons.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 9:58 am

There's also sea krait nagas and oceanic nagas.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 10:10 am

Anime-Junkie wrote:
There's also sea krait nagas and oceanic nagas.

Yep. We've got the Pit Nagas (which are hard to use because they're from hell and very powerful), diamond nagas (which are very rare)...

Then there's Sea Krait Nagas and Oceanic Nagas, which are developed nicely and good to use.

...but then there's just this big, unspecified mass all the other nagas fall into, that is divided up by element. I think that's the area that needs to be defined more. Given how different the nagas in that group are (the native ones anyway, since the offworlders are already different), you could probably get a half-dozen interesting new species out of them. Seems a waste to just lump all them in as "standard nagas".
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
Shady Knight
Lord of the Elements
avatar

Posts : 4527
Join date : 2008-01-20
Age : 27

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 12:04 pm

I have some ideas for species of nagas as well as traditional elemental affinities for them. Most of it is made on the spot.


Arboreal naga - Nature, wind, earth

River naga - water, ice

Volcanic naga - fire, earth

Subterranean naga - earth, dark

Storm naga - lightning, wind

Arctic naga - ice, water, wind, earth (in Frost Peak)

Desert naga - fire, earth, light
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://shady-knight.deviantart.com/
Slimetoad
Temple scourge
Temple scourge
avatar

Posts : 617
Join date : 2010-09-13
Age : 29

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 1:19 pm

Sean Okotami wrote:
I have some ideas for species of nagas as well as traditional elemental affinities for them. Most of it is made on the spot.


Arboreal naga - Nature, wind, earth

River naga - water, ice

Volcanic naga - fire, earth

Subterranean naga - earth, dark

Storm naga - lightning, wind

Arctic naga - ice, water, wind, earth (in Frost Peak)

Desert naga - fire, earth, light

I support this. It's perfectly reasonable to me, and makes things more varied
Back to top Go down
View user profile
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Sun May 29, 2011 2:28 pm

Slimetoad wrote:
Sean Okotami wrote:
I have some ideas for species of nagas as well as traditional elemental affinities for them. Most of it is made on the spot.


Arboreal naga - Nature, wind, earth

River naga - water, ice

Volcanic naga - fire, earth

Subterranean naga - earth, dark

Storm naga - lightning, wind

Arctic naga - ice, water, wind, earth (in Frost Peak)

Desert naga - fire, earth, light

I support this. It's perfectly reasonable to me, and makes things more varied

Yep, seems fine to me too.

Maybe add in some kind of Forest Naga, or something, for Nagas who live on the ground in the forest. They can't all be arboreal.

Other than that, it looks good. It would let us classify a lot of the nagas in the wiki more accurately, and maybe even give them a new trait or two as their species is more defined. Lots of ways to go with this, really.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
Karbo
Evil admin
Evil admin
avatar

Posts : 3769
Join date : 2007-12-08

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 1:56 am

Sean Okotami wrote:
I have some ideas for species of nagas as well as traditional elemental affinities for them. Most of it is made on the spot.


Arboreal naga - Nature, wind, earth

River naga - water, ice

Volcanic naga - fire, earth

Subterranean naga - earth, dark

Storm naga - lightning, wind

Arctic naga - ice, water, wind, earth (in Frost Peak)

Desert naga - fire, earth, light

Mhh nice job ^^
That's an interesting idea here, sort of a middle-ground. I'm studying it Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://karbo.deviantart.com/
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 9:12 am

Hmm... There are two ways to go about this.
We can either have the genus dictated habitat, or by the phenotype and behaviour. (how they look)

Personally, I prefer the latter. Why? Because I believe it makes far more sense. Imagine two species nagas that by most appearances are completely different; different length tails, no similarity between scale patterns, etc. If the only trait that was shared between them was that they both lived in the jungle, how does that make sense for them to be related?

But if there were two species of nagas had different habitats, but had similar tail length, similar venom similarities in scale patterns and a tendency to hunt in a similar fashion, would it not be logical to assume that the those two species were related?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
gwadahunter2222
Master cartographer
Master cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1835
Join date : 2007-12-08
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 11:46 am

Anime-Junkie wrote:

Personally, I prefer the latter. Why? Because I believe it makes far more sense. Imagine two species nagas that by most appearances are completely different; different length tails, no similarity between scale patterns, etc. If the only trait that was shared between them was that they both lived in the jungle, how does that make sense for them to be related?
Concurrence, in order to face the competition of the member of their own cousins they develop capacity to distinguish themselves

Anime-Junkie wrote:
But if there were two species of nagas had different habitats, but had similar tail length, similar venom similarities in scale patterns and a tendency to hunt in a similar fashion, would it not be logical to assume that the those two species were related?
convergent evolution when two different specie with no direct link develop the same capacity at the same time. Even if things can let you think they are related.

In the two case both can or cannot be related between each other.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gwadahunter2222.deviantart.com/
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 2:52 pm

Anime-Junkie wrote:
Hmm... There are two ways to go about this.
We can either have the genus dictated habitat, or by the phenotype and behaviour. (how they look)

Personally, I prefer the latter. Why? Because I believe it makes far more sense. Imagine two species nagas that by most appearances are completely different; different length tails, no similarity between scale patterns, etc. If the only trait that was shared between them was that they both lived in the jungle, how does that make sense for them to be related?

But if there were two species of nagas had different habitats, but had similar tail length, similar venom similarities in scale patterns and a tendency to hunt in a similar fashion, would it not be logical to assume that the those two species were related?

I think most of it would be common sense, honestly.

Only about half the known nagas would need to be assigned an official species too. The rest are either offworlders, or of a defined species.

I think the best thing this would do is give newcomers someplace to start when they make a character. They can look at established naga species, and fit their character into one of them, or make their own. No one has to just make a "giant naga" anymore. They can give it a species now =)

As for the common sense part, it shouldn't be too hard. Magic element and habitat would be the easiest way to do it, behavior and physical traits can be taken into account as well, of course. Like, look at Crisis. She lives in a tree, climbs like a monkey, and is a nature element. She's clearly an arboreal naga.

I think Sean's list covers most potential cases, and if there are nagas that don't necissarily fit, a new species could be created.

The only potential additions I could see would be...
- Some kind of ground-dwelling naga that lives in the forest. Not all forest nagas are going to be arboreal.

- Maybe some kind of plains/grasslands naga, for those that live outside of the forest.

- Possibly some kind of ice element naga that isn't an Ice Naga. So that Nagas like Ruby can be represented.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 3:02 pm

I understand the concept of convergent evolution. However, it does not nullify my point.

Look at pythons. They exist in many different parts of the world, yet the genera in this family of snake share characteristics that show they are related.
Images:
 
These snakes are of different genus, but the genus that their species is a part of is in the same family. The visual differences are evident from these images. What isn't are the behavioural differences that further show that these two species are related.

Despite the visual similarities, these species live in radically different habitats. Antaresia stimsoni is found in dry inland areas including woodlands, arid shrublands and deserts. Whereas the Burmese python is found in can be found in grasslands, marshes, swamps, rocky foothills, woodlands, river valleys, and jungles with open clearings.*

This is my point. species should not be groups by habitat. They should be groups by similarities in appearance, physical form and characterisics (including things such as venom) and behaviour (including hunting styles.)

*parts of this paragraph are direct quotes from wikipedia
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
gwadahunter2222
Master cartographer
Master cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1835
Join date : 2007-12-08
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 4:38 pm

Anime-Junkie wrote:
This is my point. species should not be groups by habitat. They should be groups by similarities in appearance, physical form and characterisics (including things such as venom) and behaviour (including hunting styles.

Until genetics prove they are distinct like the ground parrots in Australia whose the eastern and western ones are distinct species not subspecies and the two eastern coast subspecies and the Tasmania ones has no genetic differentiation. There are not the only one the sunda clouded leopard whose the specie living in Borneo and Sumatra are in reality two distinct species even if they show some difference in fur pattern and skin coloration the distance between the two specie is as big as the difference between tiger, lion and jaguar

My point is the classification into specie doesn't depend neither of the habitat nor the similarities they show but by evolution histories and origins (native of Felarya or not). In our case it will be more a matter of arbitrary statement than a scientific studies.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gwadahunter2222.deviantart.com/
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 5:10 pm

I think you two are overthinking this.

All this is doing is making 6 to 10 naga species for the "standard nagas" in the wiki to be put into, and to serve as potential templates for new people to use to make a character, if they don't want to think up their own species.

This doesn't really warrant a big discussion about genetics and evolution, its just adding in some things that probably should have been added in a while ago...so that a lot of the "standard nagas" can finally have a species. If some of the canon nagas don't fit into the species we come up with, or a new character comes along that doesn't fit, then thinking up a new species would be fairly easy. Its a simple solution that creates a variety in nagas, without every single species needing a full bio.

I support doing this with fairies too, by the way. We have a great many "giant fairies" that are clearly not hybrids, but also aren't canopy fairies and...whatever Melany is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
gwadahunter2222
Master cartographer
Master cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1835
Join date : 2007-12-08
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 5:48 pm

rcs619 wrote:

This doesn't really warrant a big discussion about genetics and evolution, its just adding in some things that probably should have been added in a while ago...so that a lot of the "standard nagas" can finally have a species. If some of the canon nagas don't fit into the species we come up with, or a new character comes along that doesn't fit, then thinking up a new species would be fairly easy. Its a simple solution that creates a variety in nagas, without every single species needing a full bio.

Let's take an example Katrika is a londorean naga and Vivian is rumored to not be native of Felarya, Saya master the same element as Vivian which is water but Saya is native of Felarya. Saya and Vivian doesn't belong to the same specie which is obvious so do we necessary create three species for each of them ? Yes and no.

Yes, if more members of their respective species appears more into the universe ie more characters or a specific groups of individuals, tribe, people, etc... or are mentioned into the history of the Felarya.

No, its only specific to the background of the characters and which will never be developed beyond.

The matter of specie is more a matter of background than a real necessity.

What you refer as "standard naga" is just the general definition which serves as a base to develop a character not a specie in particuliar.

rcs619 wrote:
I support doing this with fairies too, by the way. We have a great many "giant fairies" that are clearly not hybrids, but also aren't canopy fairies and...whatever Melany is.

I'm not sure. If you refers to the fairies living in Threno island (which we don't know if outside their island they can became gigantic or not) or Leppy which is not native maybe but when you read the definition of the size changing ability they are not really growing and shrinking because they don't have a proper size. this not a factor decisive to be considered as a different specie or not as for the elemental affinities for naga. You have to dig deeper the question.


Last edited by gwadahunter2222 on Tue May 31, 2011 5:49 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : chaning words)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gwadahunter2222.deviantart.com/
Anime-Junkie
Loremaster
avatar

Posts : 2690
Join date : 2007-12-16
Age : 24
Location : The Country of Kangaroos and Criminal Scum

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 6:01 pm

gwadahunter2222 wrote:
Anime-Junkie wrote:
This is my point. species should not be groups by habitat. They should be groups by similarities in appearance, physical form and characterisics (including things such as venom) and behaviour (including hunting styles.

Until genetics prove they are distinct like the ground parrots in Australia whose the eastern and western ones are distinct species not subspecies and the two eastern coast subspecies and the Tasmania ones has no genetic differentiation. There are not the only one the sunda clouded leopard whose the specie living in Borneo and Sumatra are in reality two distinct species even if they show some difference in fur pattern and skin coloration the distance between the two specie is as big as the difference between tiger, lion and jaguar

My point is the classification into specie doesn't depend neither of the habitat nor the similarities they show but by evolution histories and origins (native of Felarya or not). In our case it will be more a matter of arbitrary statement than a scientific studies.
Did you even think about my example?
Those snakes were in the same family. That's the teir above genus. Lions, tigers and jaguars are all part of the same genus; panthera. They are more closely related than those snakes in my example. They could have been used in my example and it would have worked just as well.
Tigers, lions and jaguars occupy the same ecological niche in their respective habitats. They use similar techniques to kill their prey and have obvious physical similarities. It would be obvious, even to someone who didn't know much about biology that those 3 species are related.

Gwada, your point makes no sense; you speak of genetics as if it has absolutely no impact on appearance. Species that are descended from a common ancestor exhibit the traits of that ancestor and similarities to other species that share the same ancestor; thereby betraying their relation.

By grouping species by these things, it becomes far easier to picture them if no image or art is available. If someone makes a new species of, say, fariy and says that it's part of a certain genus, it instantly gives readers a whole lot of information about that species. People will be able to get a general idea of how it looks and behaves that can then be refined by the description, rather than just it's habitat.

An another note, this discussion really does deserve it's own thread, since it is a fair way off the original topic of this thread. I'm requesting a moderator split the relevant posts into a new thread.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.Excelsior-Emeritus.deviantart.com
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 6:37 pm

Quote :
Let's take an example Katrika is a londorean naga and Vivian is rumored to not be native of Felarya, Saya master the same element as Vivian which is water but Saya is native of Felarya. Saya and Vivian doesn't belong to the same specie which is obvious so do we necessary create three species for each of them ? Yes and no.

We don't need to create species for offworlders, because they're almost always a defined species. These species are for Felaryan native nagas, and canon nagas that don't currently have any defined species, which is nearly all of them.

Vivian is only rumored to be an offworlder. Whether she is a River Naga, or some strange, off-world species, is up to Karbo.

What Saya is would be up to Arconius. The character's creators would need to be notified if an edit was going to be made to the entry.

Quote :
The matter of specie is more a matter of background than a real necessity

Its a matter of something that is missing, and should be corrected. It would add a little more background to each charcter that didn't previously have one. It may be little more than trivia, but trivia is what makes a world feel whole. A house may be big and nice (the main, important parts of the world), but if it has no furniature, or pictures hanging on the walls, then it is just bare and dull.

Quote :
What you refer as "standard naga" is just the general definition which serves as a base to develop a character not a specie in particuliar.

No, what I refer as a "standard naga" is a group of characters with no defined species and wildly different physical, magical, and unique traits. Many of them are clearly different species of naga, and yet they currently have none. It gives the impression that all nagas are basically the same, no matter where you go, and the only difference between them is their magical element. This image is not only wrong, but it is just short-sighted and dull.

Quote :
or Leppy which is not native

Leppy is a Londorean Fairy. She already has a species. She would not be affected by this at all.

Quote :
I'm not sure. If you refers to the fairies living in Threno island (which we don't know if outside their island they can became gigantic or not) or Leppy which is not native maybe but when you read the definition of the size changing ability they are not really growing and shrinking because they don't have a proper size. this not a factor decisive to be considered as a different specie or not as for the elemental affinities for naga. You have to dig deeper the question.

Im not talking about using size as a species determination. Im talking about physical traits.

There are quite a few fairies, like Temi for example, who are not a fairy/elemental hybrid, or a known species of fairy. They're just....fairies, with no true species name. Many fairies fall into this category as well. There are also individuals like Melany, which are clearly a different type of fairy altogether, and also don't have a defined species.

Just for fun, let's make a list...

Known nagas and their species, according to the wiki:
- Crisis: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Namesta: Species unknown (she is an offworlder, and is clearly a unique type of naga. she's currently just listed as a "giant naga" )
- Terra: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Rin: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Aniya: Ice Naga (I believe Tora actually gave her a defined species)
- Anna: Giant semi-naga (Personally, I think we could come up with a better name. Its clearly just based on the "giant naga" that is used on so many other characters)
- Masumi: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Scala: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Aurora: Currently a "giant naga" (I believe she is an offworlder though, and should probably have her own unique species name)
- Garnet: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Kaiten: Not sure if Kaiman gave him a set species name. He's not only an offworlder, but a magical accident, similar to Anna in some ways.
- Vivian: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Saya: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Fiona: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Katrika: Londorean Naga (currently "giant naga" )
- Malika: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Jissy: Species unknown (currently "giant naga" )
- Pella: Oceanic Naga
- Negeyari: Sea Krait Naga
Then there's Kai, Monty, Ajab and Queztal, which I don't know much about.

My point is, we have all these characters, with all their differences, all thrown under the species label "giant naga". Its dull, and doesn't tell us anything. We can use this opportunity to make all these characters a little more unique, give them a species, and show that there are MANY more types of nagas besides "giant nagas".

Now how about the Fairies:
- Melany: Species unknown (currently "Fairy" )
- Temi: Species unknown (currently "Fairy" )
- Alvar: Species unknown (currently "Fairy" )
- Lily: Species unknown (currently "Fairy" )
- Aya: Species unknown (currently "Fairy" )
- Lucilya: Species unknown (currently "Fairy" )
- Leppy: Londorean Fairy (currently "Fairy" )
- Relina: (I believe she's a Crimson Maiden, but Im not sure)
- Kiki: Crimson Maiden
- Subeta: Canopy Fairy

Once again, we have a similar issue. Characters with wildy different physical traits and abilities, all lumped together under a generic species name. I just feel we're missing a huge opportunity to add some variety to the setting.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
gwadahunter2222
Master cartographer
Master cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1835
Join date : 2007-12-08
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 6:59 pm

Anime-Junkie wrote:
Did you even think about my example?
You didn't think to mine neither.

Anime-Junkie wrote:
Those snakes were in the same family. That's the teir above genus. Lions, tigers and jaguars are all part of the same genus; panthera. They are more closely related than those snakes in my example. They could have been used in my example and it would have worked just as well.
Tigers, lions and jaguars occupy the same ecological niche in their respective habitats. They use similar techniques to kill their prey and have obvious physical similarities. It would be obvious, even to someone who didn't know much about biology that those 3 species are related.
Belonging to the same families and show the same traits doesn't mean you are necessary you are close relatives. I don't deny this species are relates from each other but the distance between their bond can vary greatly and independently of their trait. Similarly the two clouded leopard can be think at the first as closed relatives but in reality they are as distant as lions is distant from a tiger.

Anime-Junkie wrote:
Gwada, your point makes no sense; you speak of genetics as if it has absolutely no impact on appearance.
I didn't say that but it's not because you have the same appearance it's mean you are close relative. Genetics are far more complicated from that.

Anime-Junkie wrote:
Species that are descended from a common ancestor exhibit the traits of that ancestor and similarities to other species that share the same ancestor; thereby betraying their relation.
It's not always true.

Anime-Junkie wrote:
By grouping species by these things, it becomes far easier to picture them if no image or art is available. If someone makes a new species of, say, fariy and says that it's part of a certain genus, it instantly gives readers a whole lot of information about that species. People will be able to get a general idea of how it looks and behaves that can then be refined by the description, rather than just it's habitat.
If I say a human is a Miratan and another one is living in the jungle and the third one coming from New York you have the same results. The habitat give as valuable informations as the genus and is simpler.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gwadahunter2222.deviantart.com/
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 7:09 pm

Quote :
If I say a human is a Miratan and another one is living in the jungle and the third one coming from New York you have the same results.

Those aren't species, those are nationalities.

They're still all human, unless some of them have different physical/biological traits

Either way, this is getting off topic. Our real problem is what I have in those lists in my previous post.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
gwadahunter2222
Master cartographer
Master cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1835
Join date : 2007-12-08
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 7:47 pm

rcs619 wrote:
Those aren't species, those are nationalities.
Unless the three share a common ancestor yes maybe but only the third example is coming from Earth the two other ones we don't know potentially they can be considered as a specie. But their origins show they have different evolution histories.

rcs619 wrote:
They're still all human, unless some of them have different physical/biological traits
It's only the only thing they share in common. Because they don't have any common ancestor which link them to Earth and make them related to each other.

rcs619 wrote:
Either way, this is getting off topic. Our real problem is what I have in those lists in my previous post.
First Rin is a ice nage. But I don't know if she's related in a way to Aniya or not belonging to a common group or specie.

Two as I said previously for Leppy and for Aurora( who is the only living members), the fact they belongs to a different specie is only contribute to the background of the characters but if the specie is developed get beyond the fact to be a simple launchers for the characters past ie like the Seilnit tribe oddly the living members is Shallandra which oddly is not a canon character but Aimi is rumored to be a member of this tribe and the broken hill tribe (Sonya should move as known members)

To be simple I'm not for 1 character = 1 specie.

For the fairies, word of God said Melany is a regular fairies and she is closer maybe to Alvar, Temi and Aya than Lily(Word of God) and Subeta whose belong to a specific subspecies whose physically are similar
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gwadahunter2222.deviantart.com/
rcs619
Felarya cartographer
Felarya cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1589
Join date : 2008-04-07
Age : 29
Location : Hanging out with Fiona in the Bulvon Wood

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Tue May 31, 2011 8:59 pm

Quote :
First Rin is a ice nage. But I don't know if she's related in a way to Aniya or not belonging to a common group or specie

Yes, she is an ice naga. She's listed as a "giant naga" in the wiki though, along with 90% of the other nagas. I would say Aniya and Rin are the same species, considering their blue skin and ice magic.

Leppy and Aurora ARE unique species. They aren't listed as such in the wiki though. Aurora, for example, is listed as a "giant naga", same with Katrika. For those, we'd just ask the creators "Hey, what is their proper species name?" and it would be added. They would be unique compared to other species, since they ARE from another world.

Quote :
To be simple I'm not for 1 character = 1 specie

It wouldn't just be 1 character = 1 species. Some would share their species. Crisis and Fiona would both likely be arboreal nagas. Rin and Aniya would both be ice nagas.

What this does, at least with FELARYAN species, is set up templates. Someone can come in and go "I want to make this kind of naga" and look at the established species. They can then use that as a base, or, if nothing suits their liking, make and develop their own species. The different species would gradually gain more members. Honestly, I'd be fine if all the current canon nagas were all a different species. It shows variety, it shows that there are many, many types of nagas, and it helps show just how vast and complex the world of Felarya is. But like I said, some would share species, most likely.

Quote :
For the fairies, word of God said Melany is a regular fairies and she is closer maybe to Alvar, Temi and Aya than Lily(Word of God) and Subeta whose belong to a specific subspecies whose physically are similar

lol, word of god. There is no word of god in this community. Everything is subject to change, and everything can be influenced by the community.

Its pretty obvious that Melany is an entirely different species of Fairy, mainly because of her skin and horns. She has nothing in common with the others.

Alvar, Temi and Aya need their own species as well, along with several other fairies that are just listed as "fairies" in the wiki.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://rcs619.deviantart.com/
Oldman40k2003
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 661
Join date : 2007-12-08

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:05 am

Anime-Junkie wrote:
An another note, this discussion really does deserve it's own thread, since it is a fair way off the original topic of this thread. I'm requesting a moderator split the relevant posts into a new thread.

I don't know, isn't the original topic "should sub-species have their own sub-pages"? This seems pretty on-topic to me.

_________________
Eye see you.

"...you can't explain everything with science." - Our own "Sean Okotami"
Sure you can, though you may have to invent a new field of science first.

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" - Agatha Heterodyne
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://oldman40k2003.deviantart.com/
gwadahunter2222
Master cartographer
Master cartographer
avatar

Posts : 1835
Join date : 2007-12-08
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:07 am

rcs619 wrote:
Yes, she is an ice naga. She's listed as a "giant naga" in the wiki though, along with 90% of the other nagas. I would say Aniya and Rin are the same species, considering their blue skin and ice magic
It's more an assumption than a statement.

Having the same skin colour and using the same magic is not sufficient trait to be considered as a same specie or same group or population. The elemental affinities and the variation of the skin colouration are not a sufficient condition to be considered necessary as a species.

if you based your listing on physical similarities look at this:


These two women are more related to southeast Asian population than any subsaharan african populations. They are belonging to indegenous people living in the island of the south of India. The only link they share with Africans it's a common origins of 60 000 years but in many point they are clearly belong to a distinct population. And if you use the Out of Africa Theory, I will answer some recent studies let think non-african population are the result of an admixture between neendertals and sapiens and some recent discovery seems to give reasons to the multi-regionalism theory but this information are all in conditional it's just OOT doesn't make the unanimity how it is explained.

rcs619 wrote:
Leppy and Aurora ARE unique species. They aren't listed as such in the wiki though. Aurora, for example, is listed as a "giant naga", same with Katrika. For those, we'd just ask the creators "Hey, what is their proper species name?" and it would be added.
They would be unique compared to other species, since they ARE from another world.
But their BIO show they ARE different species. If the fact you are coming from another world make you a different species we will have a bad surprise in the end.

rcs619 wrote:
It wouldn't just be 1 character = 1 species. Some would share their species. Crisis and Fiona would both likely be arboreal nagas. Rin and Aniya would both be ice nagas.
it's still 1 character = 1 specie no matter the specie is the same or not, a character won't belong to more than one specie unless it's a strange halfbreed.

rcs619 wrote:
What this does, at least with FELARYAN species, is set up templates. Someone can come in and go "I want to make this kind of naga" and look at the established species. They can then use that as a base, or, if nothing suits their liking, make and develop their own species. The different species would gradually gain more members.
It will be true if each harpies species have at least one member. In overall people create specie or characters according to the specie or characters they like or the more popular.

rcs619 wrote:
Honestly, I'd be fine if all the current canon nagas were all a different species. It shows variety, it shows that there are many, many types of nagas, and it helps show just how vast and complex the world of Felarya is. But like I said, some would share species, most likely.
Even members into a same species can show variety in term of traits, members of a same specie are not clone or just the mix of the traits of their parents. Variety express in different way among individuals and species.

rcs619 wrote:
lol, word of god. There is no word of god in this community. Everything is subject to change, and everything can be influenced by the community.
But the community is not DRIVING but HELPING the development of the universe, only Karbo is the one able to do statement or change it no matter what we can say or assume only he can say or not if it's true or not.

rcs619 wrote:
Its pretty obvious that Melany is an entirely different species of Fairy, mainly because of her skin and horns. She has nothing in common with the others.
Karbo's answer doesn't she belongs to a specific specie

Things can change of course but until now she's considered as a a regular fairies with a strange variation.

rcs619 wrote:
Alvar, Temi and Aya need their own species as well, along with several other fairies that are just listed as "fairies" in the wiki.
it's only assumptions and personal preferences, there is no obligation to do that.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://gwadahunter2222.deviantart.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Should sub-species be put into heir own pages    

Back to top Go down
 
Should sub-species be put into heir own pages
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Operation "Heir-2" in the Russian said, who can replace Putin and Medvedev
» Archiving of the Investigation
» Sun on Sunday
» Karentia's Corner
» If you "liked" the Maddie FB page WITHOUT your consent - this may be of interest!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Felarya :: Idea forums :: Change suggestions-
Jump to: