nursing?

Quote :

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

- At least half a dozen species of cobras.
- Archer fish
- Bombadier beetles
- Certain species of ant
- Velvet worms

These are all animals which spray fluid at prey/enemies.

And for the record, dilophosaurus was more likely a hunter of small animals like lizards and primitive theropods. Its nimble hands and thin, darting neck all seem well-suited for catching smaller creatures.

Quote :

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.

Provided that there were internal muscles to contract the acid sacs, then no, this would provide a BIG advantage in the wild. It's a basic fact of life that things that shoot acid are less likely to be eaten than things that don't.

And when it comes to spraying acid to ward of predators, who needs accuracy? So long as it sprays out and scares off your enemy, the merit's there.

Is it stupid? Hell yes.
Is it useless or counterproductive? Hell no.

Well, I like this thread. It's always fun to have a discussion about something nobody could ever solve.


Does the felarian fauna nurse their young? - A scientific journey

As far as we know, most felaryan predators have breasts, such as nagas, dryads or mermaids.
Of course, one could easily assume, they would nurse their young, as they have breasts and there is no reason to assume, they wouldn't be functional any more. If they wouldn't be funktional anymore, they at least would have disappeared a bit by time. This is obviously not the case.
Something that's being forgotten very often (as we tend to interpret anything as "useful" that's coming from nature), is the simple fact, that the well known thesis about evolution ("survival of the fittest"), only works, when there is something "unfitting". If there is no handicap, there is in fact no reason for evolution to get rid of it through letting the "unfitting" extinct.
Of course, big breasts are a handicap as long they are not being used, but is it enough for evolution to step in? When a species gets too omnipresent, small imperfections in terms of fitting are becoming irrelevant. This can be seen on humans, who are not very fitting but still very omnipresent in our real world. I think, the same counts for the felaryan predators.
Dryads aren't moving that much, so the breast are not a serious handicap in either way. Mermaids, who need a good streamline to swim better, aren't hindered by them either. The opposite is the case.
The only creature, that would be handicapped significant, are nagas, as they need to be as agile as possible to catch their prey.

My conclusion:
It's implausible for dryads to nurse their young. Especially when they use spores to reproduce themselves, the chance, they will stand next to her young at one time, is not very likely to happen. Instead, the breasts seem to be used for distracting male human prey from fleeing instantly, as the dryad can not move that fast.
For mermaids, the case is undecided. But I would assume, the really use them.
For nagas, the case is almost clear. Yes, nagas use their breasts to nurse their siblings.

undersde wrote:

For nagas, the case is almost clear. Yes, nagas use their breasts to nurse their siblings.

Their siblings?!

I sure hope you meant offspring...

undersde wrote:

The only creature, that would be handicapped significant, are nagas, as they need to be as agile as possible to catch their prey.

It doesn't apply to Vivian

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

It doesn't apply to Vivian

Yet, it doesn't apply yet.

How about: It's a fantasy world, they can have breasts just for the kick of it, so if they need or not need to nurse their young, it's all up to you. Also, we don't even know how Dryads reproduce, only the man himself knows.

Xeno-the-Hedgehog your post made me cry, I had no idea the wrongness I possessed. I mean I didn’t just get the bit about the boobs wrong, I got my mental abilities wrong as well. And to think Jurassic Park got something inaccurate too, wow. Did science also find out that T-rexs don’t hover, cuz they had a hover T-rex in the movie but I thought it was a little silly. Anyway, we really should be asking Moonlight-Pendent about acid squirting breasts, she would probably know more about this then any of us. I’m not saying her breasts squirt acid, I’m just saying there is a possibility.

Technically, breasts shooting acid is the same as breasts shooting milk. Milk is slightly acidic in nature.

Malahite wrote:

Technically, breasts shooting acid is the same as breasts shooting milk. Milk is slightly acidic in nature.

Really? Wow, the more you know….


G.I Joe….

Actually, milk is a base, not an acid. It has a higher ph level than water, just as acids have lower ph, which makes the two cancel eachother out. That's why it makes such an effective remedy for heartburn and ulcers.

Mickilla wrote:

Actually, milk is a base, not an acid. It has a higher ph level than water, just as acids have lower ph, which makes the two cancel eachother out. That's why it makes such an effective remedy for heartburn and ulcers.

Milk of Magnesia is the basic one, regular milk is slightly lower in pH than distilled water and blood, while similar in level to urine.

'Course, this could be a wrong book, it IS 14 years old.

Haar wrote:

undersde wrote:

For nagas, the case is almost clear. Yes, nagas use their breasts to nurse their siblings.

Their siblings?!

I sure hope you meant offspring...

looool

Now, that's definitely the wrong word
I meant "offspring", of course. (english is not my native language)

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

It doesn't apply to Vivian

You got me there. Beaten with my own weapons...

Anyways...


Be prepared for the following scientific journeys, soon to be released:

>> The hidden truth behind acid boobs - Has evolution evolved into mass-destruction? <<

and

>> Shocking - The pervertet life of an incest naga. <<

It makes sense to me that creatures with boobs would, where possible, nurse their young. Being born from an egg does not prevent being nursed (see: platypus), and it is fairly advantageous for a species to nurse their young, as it allows a "helpless baby" to be born and then "grow up" quickly, rather than having to be born as a fully functional adult.

Dryads present us with an interesting problem, considering their method of reproduction doesn't seem compatible with nursing. We know that Dryads often become the "center" of a group, with other creatures working for them. Perhaps they need to nurse a child of their group from time to time? Dryads have a great deal of control over their biochemistry, so it also might be useful to have boobs simply as a means to produce a particular fluid quickly and store a large amount of it for later use.

Well you pretty much summed my opinion on the subject ^_^