nursing?

This has been bugging me for awhile now. Do any felaryan predators nurse their young? Every one that I've seen, regardless of species, has a pair, but do "the twins" actually serve a biological function, or are they just there for visual aesthetic?

You know, I don't know.

I think they can serve for nursing purposes, but only a few species I know of actually require feeding of this nature.

I might be wrong, so don't quote me.

Not sure, but I think baby harpies are nursed.

Evolution works in very weird ways on Felarya, but logic says that if the breasts didn't serve an important purpose, they'd have atrophied long ago. A slight edge in keeping your prey distracted just doesn't compensate for the physical awkwardness that suge huge mammary glands pose on a body.

Besides, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't nurse their young. I'd imagine it's a matter of whether or not the mother wants to, but I'd say the mechanism's the same as it is for a human.

Maybe they just have a yet unseen ability, like they can shoot acids or something, that would rule.

Vivian- “Everyone get away form me now! I think I might be lactating!”

Everyone- “Why would we need t-OH GOD IT BURNS!”

awesome

I think the answer is yes but in general most of the characters are orphan since their childhood or never know their parents.
So I can conclude become parent in Felarya = imminent death

Quote :

I think the answer is yes but in general most of the characters are orphan since their childhood or never know their parents.
So I can conclude become parent in Felarya = imminent death

Yeah, but that applies to fantasy in general. XP

GREGOLE wrote:

Evolution works in very weird ways on Felarya, but logic says that if the breasts didn't serve an important purpose, they'd have atrophied long ago. A slight edge in keeping your prey distracted just doesn't compensate for the physical awkwardness that suge huge mammary glands pose on a body.

You better don't tell this unfortunate man about it.

Quote :

Besides, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't nurse their young. I'd imagine it's a matter of whether or not the mother wants to, but I'd say the mechanism's the same as it is for a human.

I agree. But i don't think one can use any logic here. There are just so many different species present and the behaviour can change with every single one. Besides, there is no reason to think, every single naga raises her child the same way, even if the species is the same.

Quote :

So I can conclude become parent in Felarya = imminent death Laughing

Unless you're a Ignisan, because then you become too bad ass to be effected by that rule.

Technically, there's no reason why they couldn't. No matter which way you cut it, Nagas as we know them have hair and behave as though they're warm blooded. From the waist up they are mammalian in just about every regard. Even though their inner reproductive organs are located in the snake half, and some do lay eggs, its perfectly reasonable that hormones like estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin may be produced by a gestation, which may lead to milk production. As previously stated, its their behavior that would be the biggest obstacle. Many that we've seen were abandoned by their mothers, which leads me to believe that more than a coincidence was involved and that nagas may instinctively wait only until they're assured that their brood will hatch before leaving them to fend for themselves. There remains, however, the possibility that in fact this is a coincidence, and that there are nagas out there who care for their offspring for some extended period of time. In which case, nursing is all the more plausible.

Mickilla wrote:

Many that we've seen were abandoned by their mothers, which leads me to believe that more than a coincidence was involved and that nagas may instinctively wait only until they're assured that their brood will hatch before leaving them to fend for themselves. There remains, however, the possibility that in fact this is a coincidence, and that there are nagas out there who care for their offspring for some extended period of time. In which case, nursing is all the more plausible.

In short: It depends on whether you think naga=snake, or not.

Plus, just because something is part reptile, doesn't mean the have no mammalian aspects, after all mammals evolved from reptiles, nagas could simple have evolved in a third direction of a mammal/reptile hybrid.

Circumstances or not, the fact remains that Felaryan predators have mammaries; I care not about whether the individual chooses to use them, the question I am asking is whether they are capable of using them to nurse young.

Quote :

Plus, just because something is part reptile, doesn't mean the have no mammalian aspects, after all mammals evolved from reptiles, nagas could simple have evolved in a third direction of a mammal/reptile hybrid.

That's kinda voided when you consider dridders, harpies, centaurs and mermaids all have bewbage as well.
I think it's more a question of whether or not they're functional.

Quote :

Circumstances or not, the fact remains that Felaryan predators have mammaries; I care not about whether the individual chooses to use them, the question I am asking is whether they are capable of using them to nurse young.

There's no reason to believe that they don't. And as I said before, giant breasts are EXTREMELY awkward from a survival perspective. Nagas can catch prey with or without seducing it first. If the breasts didn't offer some sort of major benefit - like nursing young - then they'd have been atrophied long ago.

I would like to resubmit my acid boob theory. Come on, you know you want it to be true.

Well I would guess that they would be able to nurse their young, otherwise the breasts wouldn't be there (IMO). Having breasts and not being able to use them for their (TRUE) purpose is basically like having a Computer without the CPU. You can't do jack squat with it...

GREGOLE wrote:

Quote :

Plus, just because something is part reptile, doesn't mean the have no mammalian aspects, after all mammals evolved from reptiles, nagas could simple have evolved in a third direction of a mammal/reptile hybrid.

That's kinda voided when you consider dridders, harpies, centaurs and mermaids all have bewbage as well.
I think it's more a question of whether or not they're functional.

Regarding the Dridders, it's plausible that they use them, but not necessarily for that purpose; I read somewhere that a spider's silk glands are basically the arachnid equivalent of the mammary glands on a mammal. Same part of the anatomy, different function.

zalzas wrote:

I would like to resubmit my acid boob theory. Come on, you know you want it to be true.

dude, no. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that would be even more awkward than if they served no purpose at all.

Quote :

Regarding the Dridders, it's plausible that they use them, but not necessarily for that purpose; I read somewhere that a spider's silk glands are basically the arachnid equivalent of the mammary glands on a mammal. Same part of the anatomy, different function.

There's still something like twenty different creatures to account for.

Quote :

dude, no. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that would be even more awkward than if they served no purpose at all.

Philistine. XP

The mermaids; Whales and dolphins nurse their young, so it's plausible.
Angels, Succubi, and Faeries; given their mostly-human physiology, there's no reason why they couldn't
Dryads; this is anyone's guess. it seems like they should serve a purpose. Nectar production perhaps?


And what does Philistine mean? I simply meant that the ability to squirt acid from their breasts wouldn't serve ANY useful purpose; you can't hunt with it, it would be inefficient for self defense, and the act itself would require more energy than an adult individual can usually spare. From a biological standpoint, such an ability would put the organism at an absolute disadvantage. It's one thing to suggest something because it could potentially integrate as part of the greater collection of ideas, but to suggest something just because it sounds "cool" is counterproductive.


What's Karbo's standpoint on this argument? He created the first predatorial species in Felarya, maybe he can shed some light on the subject.

Quote :

The mermaids; Whales and dolphins nurse their young, so it's plausible.

Most mermaids are fish. Not cetaceans.

And what about gyspas? What about harpies? What about slug girls? Wasps, birds and slugs definitely don't nurse their young.

Quote :

And what does Philistine mean? I simply meant that the ability to squirt acid from their breasts wouldn't serve ANY useful purpose; you can't hunt with it, it would be inefficient for self defense, and the act itself would require more energy than an adult individual can usually spare. From a biological standpoint, such an ability would put the organism at an absolute disadvantage. It's one thing to suggest something because it could potentially integrate as part of the greater collection of ideas, but to suggest something just because it sounds "cool" is counterproductive.

Some of the most brilliant ideas ever concieved started out as jokes.

Which is exactly what Zalzas was doing: Making a joke. I'm sorry, but nothing in the world irritates me more than when people treat what was blatantly intended to be a joke as a serious statement.

...Well, ok, a lot of things irritate me more than that. But still, don't do it.

Xeno-the-Hedgehog wrote:

And what does Philistine mean? I simply meant that the ability to squirt acid from their breasts wouldn't serve ANY useful purpose; you can't hunt with it, it would be inefficient for self defense, and the act itself would require more energy than an adult individual can usually spare. From a biological standpoint, such an ability would put the organism at an absolute disadvantage. It's one thing to suggest something because it could potentially integrate as part of the greater collection of ideas, but to suggest something just because it sounds "cool" is counterproductive.

When I suggested it I thought they would be able to get some distance with the acid, like that one spiter dinosaur in Jurassic Park. You know, the one that ate Newman. So in my mind the various females of Felarya would be shooting their boobs off like a gun.

A boob gun.

That shoots acid.

There is nothing about that idea that I do not like. Although in your defensive I do realize that most of my ideas have a good deal of “retarded” mixed in. So you probably have a point.

First of all, the "spittor" Dilophosaurus from Jurassic park was wildly inaccurate; there is no evidence in the fossil record to suggest that the species spat venom or had a neck frill. Besides that, the ones that have been discovered consistently support the theory that their jaws just weren't strong enough for the species to have been predatory, and they were probably scavengers

Second of all, as I said before, squirting acid from their breasts would serve absolutely no useful purpose, and would require both hands just to aim them, making it more of a hindrance than a help.

Lastly, if you were retarded, you wouldn't know how to sit down in front of the computer, much less make suggestions in a forum. the word "retarded" simply means that the person is mentally incapable of functioning in society. given that you know how to use a computer and partake in a debate such as this, you sir are not retarded; ignorant and uninformed maybe, but not retarded.

Just for the record-Chilotaurs use their breasts to feed anti-bodies to their little ones.

Ive always thought nagas could give milk , my character Gibby is nursed by Joanna.

Xeno-the-Hedgehog wrote:

First of all, the "spittor" Dilophosaurus from Jurassic park was wildly inaccurate; there is no evidence in the fossil record to suggest that the species spat venom or had a neck frill. Besides that, the ones that have been discovered consistently support the theory that their jaws just weren't strong enough for the species to have been predatory, and they were probably scavengers

Second of all, as I said before, squirting acid from their breasts would serve absolutely no useful purpose, and would require both hands just to aim them, making it more of a hindrance than a help.

Lastly, if you were retarded, you wouldn't know how to sit down in front of the computer, much less make suggestions in a forum. the word "retarded" simply means that the person is mentally incapable of functioning in society. given that you know how to use a computer and partake in a debate such as this, you sir are not retarded; ignorant and uninformed maybe, but not retarded.

I don't know HOW but you managed to just kill the funnyness of all that by having to take it too seriously. There is no need to have to over annualize everything and comment on it as if they were being serious, it's kinda well annoying, just letting ya know.