#the ones that feed exclusively on dead flesh i mean. obviously ones that eat living things are

[sainteclectic]

Listened to my main playlist for the first time in a while...... I’m no wholesoul girlie but this song made me think of them and I knew who I had to immediately rush to,,,, not sure if you’d agree

(YouTube video because lyrics are unspoken.)

OHHHHH... this is such an interesting song i love the vibes. it's very soulcore... "you smell of dead flowers, I smell of the sewer I rot in" reads very wholesoul to me. whole is dead flowers, fading away slowly but still pretty in an ethereal way. soul is rotted and grotesque, something only useful to the scavengers that feed on its corpse. useful as compost. "i'm ashamed of all that i am now, and all that i am is painful." soul is just a twisted, broken part of a whole. it's painful to him. it's painful to whole, surely, to see such a broken rotting mess. he's ashamed to be compared to dead flowers. they're both dying things, but at least whole decays gracefully. soul just festers

[bigrockgang23]

Analysis of Major Parasitic Fauna and Pit Ecology

I’ve spent the past three days putting together a speculative food web of the Mystery Flesh Pit’s ecology. The web is made up of five base food sources (green) with the park’s fauna split into Primary (pink), Secondary (orange), and Tertiary Consumers (red). Any arrow marked with a (?) means that the connection there is more uncertain. Along with the food web I also wrote up about 5 pages of analysis on why I chose to order the food web in the way I did (was it overkill? yes. was it worth it? maybe. did I enjoy it? hell yeah). I based a lot of my speculation on established lore but obviously I filled in MANY gaps. THIS IS NOT CANON. I tried to tag all of the information that IS canon but I almost certainly forgot something, so if you see something PM me and I’ll edit the post! While the food web and analysis were written up by me, all of the material and lore is from the Mystery Flesh Pit blog. If you somehow found this post and don’t know about the source material please check it out here:

 https://mysteryfleshpit.tumblr.com/

Also, please PM me if you have questions, criticisms, or insights!! I would love to hear feedback from the community, thank you for reading!

Foundation of Pit Ecology Food Chain:

1.       Fungal Growths

The wide variety of fungal growths in the pit may provide a convenient food source for other Pit fauna. The growths are commonly found near amniotic ballast springs and are known to have spores toxic to humans1. Pit fauna that feed on the growths would certainly have adapted immunity to the spores but may incorporate those undigested toxins into their body as a predation deterrent. Fungal growths of the Pit appear to grow mainly on the surface of the organism but may extend deeper into the flesh in order to absorb nutrients from the Pit itself. Larger colonies of growths could then cause mass die-offs of Pit tissue if allowed to propagate unchecked.

2.       The Pit

        -  Amniotic Ballast Fluid

The fluid of the Amniotic Thermal Springs is known to be edible to humans and so would mostly likely form a major food source for park life2. It’s unclear what the composition of the fluid is but it may constitute a main source of water for Pit fauna. The springs could be envisioned as a “watering hole” of the Pit, drawing in a variety of both predator and prey and being a hot bed of ecological activity. A side effect manifested in humans is the fluid’s aphrodisiacal effect2; if this effect is shared by Pit fauna then the Amniotic Thermal Springs could also drive reproductive seasons or behaviors in larger organisms. This effect would not necessarily be intended by the Pit, but the relationship may have formed over time nonetheless.

         - Cystic Nutrient Ganglia

In humans, ganglia cysts usually form at joints and are enlarged pockets of lubricating fluid that collects and creates an extended, spongy bump. The cause of these cysts is still unknown, but is most likely related to joint conditions similar to arthritis. The multicellular macrobacteria of the Pit feed primarily on these ganglia. The macrobacteria leech proteins, fats, and minerals from the ganglia through osmotic diffusion1. It is unclear whether the cystic nutrient ganglia are a purposeful development of the Pit or a by-product of external factors (later in this analysis I will be making an argument for the latter). It seems that the ganglia are exclusively fed on by macrobacteria species, unless the cysts could be otherwise punctured by more “animal-like” Pit fauna1.

         - Organic Tissues

The Pit’s own tissues may provide some level of sustenance for Pit wildlife. While there is one specific organism that could be speculated to feed on Pit living tissue, it is much more likely that Pit fauna take advantage of dead or dying tissues in the park. Through natural or external means, it is clear that Pit tissue can die and necrosis can spread out from those areas5. Pit fauna eat away the dead tissue of the Pit and the Pit is protected from the spread of necrosis. It seems unlikely that any Pit fauna would purposely damage Pit tissues (it is better for the parasites to keep their host healthy, rather than contribute to its unwellness) but in times of food scarcity the Pit’s tissue could provide some nutrients to a starving creature.

3.       Unaltered/Compound Surface Fauna

Surrounding surface animals, while not native to the Pit, could provide a base food source for predatory Pit fauna. Abyssal copepods are known to exit the Pit, hunt surface wildlife, and drag living animals back down into the Pit. If these animals escape or survive initially within the Pit, they may undergo anatomical amalgamation. Common features of these compound animals are fused limbs or other major body parts and the external relocation of internal organs on the body1. Both the unaffected surface fauna and the amalgamations would be at a great disadvantage within the Pit, as they lack any Pit-specific adaptations. These animals, when found, could be an easy meal for Pit fauna. It may also be speculated that abyssal copepods only venture out in times of food scarcity within the Pit, but it is unclear how much weight this theory holds.

 Primary Consumers of the Pit:

1.       Macrobacteria

Due to their great abundance, simple reproductive behavior, and wide variety, the macrobacteria of the Pit are a fundamental building block in the Pit’s ecology. Macrobacteria are known to feed osmotically on cystic nutrient ganglia1, however it is likely that some species may eat dead organic matter (i.e. dead Pit tissue and/or deceased Pit fauna). While similar in appearance to microscopic bacteria, it is known that macrobacteria are multicellur1. Various species of macrobacteria are shown on the Major Parasitic Fauna poster3; from these drawings it appears that most species share some common traits. Each creature has a spherical or near spherical body surrounded radially by spikes and/or tendrils (omitting species H, which demonstrates a more lateral body plan). The tendrils or spikes of the macrobacteria are likely to fill many roles for the animal; locomotion, grasping/restraining, sensing, and protection could all be achieved by a set of extremities. The macrobacteria may scuttle like sea urchins, swim like jellyfish, crawl, slither, or even roll through Pit openings and fluids. Macrobacteria have been known to act aggressively in defense of territory, so the more prehensile tendrils may provide some level of grasping and restraining when the macrobacteria encounter hostile organisms. Surface bacteria and other single celled organisms use chemical sensors to “look at” or “feel” their environments and a lack of clear eye spots may indicate a similar process in macrobacteria where their tendrils could detect chemical changes or concentration levels in their surroundings. Finally, the spikes of the macrobacteria may be a defense mechanism against larger predatory Pit fauna4 (Big thanks to u/Hozin-6 who provided most of the speculation on macrobacterial locomotion and defense in this analysis. His original comment can be found in the sources).

2.       Bone Mite

The bone mite shares heavy resemblance with surface mites, ticks, and other arthropods. Based on its appearance and name, it can be speculated that the bone mite’s main food source is living Pit tissue in the form of bone marrow. It is unknown what the inner anatomy of the Pit’s various large bone structures are but they most likely contain either bone marrow or some analogous tissue. The bone mite’s hair-like structures can easily find footholds and catchments on the bone surface, allowing the mite to have full mobility over the surface of the large bones in a way similar to how flies or bed bugs crawl up walls. If bone mites feed parasitically off the living bone tissue then it is likely that they have either a hard proboscis or hard drilling mouth in order to penetrate the outer bone shell. The mites’ bodies look fairly flat as well, which may allow them to slip between folds of flesh and bone to feed3.

3.       Gastric Bristleworm

The clearest feature of the bristleworm is its namesake; the worm is covered in long, thin tendrils or bristles that protrude from the sides of the organism and encircle the “head”3. These bristles most likely provide locomotion for the worm and defense against predation. The name suggests that the gastric bristleworm may be native to “stomach-like” or digestive organs of the Pit. The worm may then feed on partially or fully digested organic matter as well as amniotic ballast fluid when necessary. Supposing the worm’s main habitats are digestive organs within the Pit, it is likely that the organism’s bristles and body are composed of a strong but flexible tissue with specific immunities to the acidic environment. The bristleworm may swim or crawl through gastric acid in order to scavenge for nutrient-rich, partially digested organic matter and so would be unchallenged by the more competitive (but less tough) Pit fauna. It could be argued that, with sufficient prompting, a gastric bristleworm could puncture a cystic nutrient ganglion and feed off the proteins and fats within but they would then be competing with the territorial macrobacteria1. The gastric bristleworm could easily fit in as a decomposer as well, eating any deceased surface or Pit fauna before it can be absorbed directly by the Pit itself.

4.       Shrieking Cloistropod

The shrieking cloistropod is the first of the list to not have a clear analogous surface organism. For this reason, it is more difficult to discern what behaviors and habits it may exhibit. The cloistropod’s lower body resembles a tap root or starchy root vegetable of surface plants3. This structure may penetrate the flesh walls of the Pit and act as an anchor for the organism. The cloistropod may use its “root” to leech nutrients from the local flesh its anchored around, as well as for the storage of excess nutrients and moisture for times of scarcity. The “head” of the organism would than sit above the flesh layer as a psudeo-plant or fungi. Based on the name and hair-like covering of the “head”, the above ground “head” may be very sensitive to touch or motion. When touched the “mouth” would then open and shriek or moan or make some other loud sound in order to frighten away possible predators. Alternatively, the shrieking cloistropod may be an ambush predator in the same vein as a venus fly trap, waiting until an organism comes close and then striking with a disorienting scream. The cloistropod’s body plan lends itself to a sessile lifestyle, especially in it’s adult stage, but it should be considered that the locomotive shrieking cloistropod theory may find more traction in a fluid-dominanted environment.

5.       Gangliotode

The name of the gangliotode may point to two possible behaviors; either the organism’s namesake comes from appearance alone or the creature is tied to nerve ganglia in some way. The gangliotode bears some surface resemblance to a nerve bundle, otherwise known as a ganglion, and so may be named according to it’s recognizable shape. On the other hand, the gangliotode may be related to the Pit’s nervous system or to the before mentioned cystic nutrient ganglia. The gangliotode’s behaviors may cause cystic nutrient ganglia to form, therefore giving it an interesting relationship with the macrobacteria of the Pit. The gangliotode may feed on cystic nutrient ganglia alongside macrobacteria, however the territorial nature of the macros as well as the specific circumstances of their feeding behavior may make this theory unlikely. Regardless, it seems fairly likely that the gangliotode does not actively hunt and may be entirely sessile.

Secondary Consumers of the Pit:

1.       Lesser/Greater Ballast Siren

Based on name alone it could be speculated that the greater ballast siren is an ambush predator that inhabits either the area around amniotic thermal springs or within the springs themselves. The greater ballast siren’s large opening on the front of it’s body may be a mouth that it can use to engulf or otherwise devour Pit fauna. The siren may sit within amniotic bulbs, either waiting for Pit fauna to get close enough or luring them in by other means, striking when the prey least expects the attack. Previously in this analysis, the amniotic thermal springs were envisioned as a “watering hole” for Pit fauna and so would be an ideal environment for this kind of ambush hunting. The greater ballast siren may have limited mobility from it’s tendrils, as well as having the ability to grasp the slippery surfaces of the springs. The lesser ballast siren appears almost like an undeveloped specimen of the greater. The lesser siren could therefore be a young or undeveloped stage in the life of the greater ballast siren or the alternate sex equivalent for the species (Pit fauna may not have a “male” and “female” but could have alternative reproductive sexes). The lesser ballast siren is less defined and so it is more difficult to discern any functions or behaviors of the species.

2.       Stinging Triocanth

Another worm-like organism native to the Pit. Like many of the Pit fauna already covered, the triocanth has many hair-like protrusions all along it’s body and extremities. The hairs that cover the organism’s “arms” may aid it in locomotion and sensing, allowing it to gain traction along slippery surfaces and narrow tunnels while the longer barbs along the body may serve another purpose. Since this is a stinging triocanth, the long barbs may be a defense mechanism and/or a form of attack to subdue prey. It could be speculated that the stinging triocanth hunts macrobacteria or even bone mites, using it’s corkscrew appendages to move quickly and pluck lone creatures that separated from the group. The barbs may slow or incapacitate the prey and the corkscrew extremities could funnel the prey down towards the mouth of the triocanth. To tie in a previous theory, the stinging triocanth may be omnivorous, feeding on fungal growths as well. The triocanth then incorporates the toxins of the ingested spores into it’s barbs, giving it a poisonous sting.

3.       Lesser Copepod

The lesser copepod may be the most surface-like organism of any of the Pit fauna. It resembles an arthropod and has some similarities to the larger abyssal copepod. The lesser copepod’s long feelers may be used to subdue prey from a distance, to coin a term they are “fisher hunters”. The lesser copepod could have some versatility in their hunting styles with such long appendages, being able to chase down prey or hide and strike from a safe distance. The lesser copepod could then easily pluck stranglers from the macrobacterial packs that roam the Pit, draw a gastric bristleworm out from it’s acidic den, or trigger a shrieking cloistropod from a safe distance and then dig up its nutrient-rich lower body. The lesser copepod’s reach compensates for it’s relatively smaller size and propels it higher on the food chain than it might otherwise be. Additionally, due to similar physiology, the lesser copepod could be a neotenic variation of the abyssal copepod; having branched away from it’s adult lineage by many generations.

4.       Venous Shamble

The venous shamble may be a slow, omnivorous, opportunistic organism of the Pit. The eye spot placement of the shamble and it’s complicated form of locomotion give it the air of a shuffling and cautious creature. The base of the head contains a tube structure that may be a proboscis, one that can extend out to some length. The venous shamble could then feed on a wide range of Pit fauna including amniotic ballast fluid, fungal growths, deceased Pit fauna, and shrieking cloistropods (using its proboscis to access the underground “root” of the organism). Similar to the stinging triocanth’s barbs, the shamble may benefit from incorporated fungal spore toxins that would deter predation and allow it to move clumsily without constant threat. Additionally, the venous shamble is subjectively the cutest of the Pit fauna and that is not up for debate. Don’t @ me.

Tertiary Consumer of the Pit (AKA apex predator):

1.       Abyssal Copepod

The abyssal copepod is certainly the apex predator of the Pit’s diverse ecology. The organism is built to move quickly through the fleshscape, with a head full of sensitive antennae to pick up on minute Pit and faunal movements as well as having large hands to grab and subdue prey. Abyssal copepods have been observed venturing outside the Pit, hunting surface fauna, and dragging them back down into their habitat1. Versatile and dangerous, the abyssal copepod is a force to be reckoned with. While the large copepod has minimal resemblance to surface arthropods and microscopic copepods, they also have the strange feature of human-like, five-digited hands. It has been theorized that abyssal copepods may be the descendants of ancient humans that found their way into the Pit and evolved to such an extreme extent that they now have almost no resemblance to modern humans6,7. While this evolution would need occur relatively quickly in geologic time, the Pit’s effects on living surface fauna are not fully understood and the harsh, variable conditions of the changing fleshscape could catalyze evolutionary developments and mutations (Thank you to u/OvoFox11 who was the first person I’ve seen relate the human hands of the abyssal copepods to descendant Pit-dwelling humans. His original comment is linked in the sources).

The Unknown Category:

1.     Amorphous Shame

Please send me suggestions as to what this is! I’m very interested in what others think, as I am at a loss.

Thank you for reading! Please PM with questions, criticisms, and insights!!

Sources:

(1)    wildlife guide, https://mysteryfleshpit.tumblr.com/post/190237475203/wildlife-safety-brochure-though-the-mystery

(2)    amniotic springs brochure (2), https://mysteryfleshpit.tumblr.com/post/615973957551718400/this-scan-of-a-2006-pamphlet-offers-information

(3)    major parasitic fauna, https://mysteryfleshpit.tumblr.com/post/623095839097798656/this-chart-and-many-others-like-it-were-produced

(4) u/Hozin-6, https://www.reddit.com/r/FleshPitNationalPark/comments/hnlsa1/major_parasitic_fauna_chart/fxcm1pb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

(5) Overall health question, https://mysteryfleshpit.tumblr.com/post/613318973731291136/hello-something-ive-been-curious-about-in

(6) u/OvoFox11, https://www.reddit.com/r/FleshPitNationalPark/comments/god6us/qa_on_tumblr_how_deep_is_the_pit_what_was_anodyne/frgdqoe?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

(7) Q&A 1, https://mysteryfleshpit.tumblr.com/post/618659022493581312/qa-001