#you might say those are species-depended behaviours

[maranull]

have i mentioned how much i love my snails?

i love them a lot

so much that i really want, if i find a tank on sale or a cheap but good DIY option, to make a dedicated snail tank and have a bunch of them crawl around

they are so nice and cool and pretty

[abirddogmoment]

We're learning about grouse hunting together!

I was really undecided on whether I wanted to hunt with Rory for realsies because I don't have a shotgun and I don't really care to get a shotgun (I have a gun license from my time up north). I have a small air rifle and a tactical slingshot (both legal for hunting small game in my area) so I've been taking those for walks in hunting areas, along with all my permits and stuff, just to see what we see.

This grouse woods is in the same corner as my swamp, just a different part of the rec area. You can legally hunt small game during the open season with dogs with some restrictions (certain distance from the parking, some trails close for hunting on a rotational basis for maintenance, etc.) but it's not terribly popular so it's a really good area to learn. We are looking for ruffed grouse and rabbit, both of which are super common out here.

With pointing dogs like britts, you generally don't want to shoot any game unless they're pointing steady (*except when doing gun conditioning, but that's a specific training set up) - it makes sense because a shot bird is the ultimate reward and you want to make sure you're reinforcing the behaviour you want, which is usually a safe steady point. Rory isn't pointing steady yet so there's really not much for me to do on these walks besides reinforce good manners (recall, how far she ranges, etc.).

There's a really well known saying in pointing dogs, which is wild birds make bird dogs. Wild birds flush (fly away) much more reliably than farmed birds so the chances of a dog catching a wild bird is really minimal compared to farmed birds. It's super important to get young bird dogs on wild birds as much as possible so they learn all the important skills: how to navigate terrain, what habitat holds birds, what each bird species smells like, how far they can range, and most importantly, that they need a person to actually get a bird.

(Most of these skills can be taught with planted birds in training, but planted birds may be more habituated to people and dogs so they might not flush reliably. Once pointing dogs learn that they can catch birds themselves, it's much harder to foster a strong stop and point. You might see people using these tip ups, which protect the training bird from the dog. You'll often see training dogs on long lines (called check cords) or with a flank collar to reinforce not getting too close to the bird, but you have to phase those out quickly so the dog doesn't become dependent on them. You also have to be really careful with scent trails when setting up planted birds or you might end up with a dog that follows your scent instead of looking for birds organically. And of course, you have to train without birds sometimes so the dog doesn't get discouraged about not finding birds quickly because sometimes there just aren't birds out there. Lots to consider when setting up training!)

Anyway I've been trying to get Rory out on wild birds as much as possible (with the caveat that we don't run wild birds during nesting season) so we're wandering the grouse woods lately. My early recall training is really paying off because she's been super reliable in terms of good manners, it's wonderful to see!

We've been out four times (1-2 hours each) so far since the season opened. The first two times we're mostly just a pleasant walk in the woods, Rory didn't really know what we were doing so she was just vibing (THIS IS TOTALLY FINE, SHE'S NEW TO THIS). We had a couple chance grouse encounters and I could see the wheels turning, I encouraged her to sniff around where the grouse were sitting before they flew off and I watched her start to connect the dots.

(It's important to remember that dogs don't know what they're looking for until you show them. Most bird dogs are naturally birdy, but they don't know which birds are good and which birds are boring! You have to show them which birds you care about - this is easiest if you can run with an experienced hunting dog, but you can do it alone like I am by making a big deal about any interest in the "correct" birds.)

The last time we went out to the grouse woods, she did a couple of really nice whip-arounds when she caught scent she liked and followed scent off the trail I was walking! This is the behaviour I want to see so it was awesome to watch it start to click! She trailed a moose (don't want that, she found some moose pee to roll in so whatever), a pileated woodpecker (again, don't want that but it was cool to see), and two separate grouse. The first was on the wrong side of the fence so I couldn't do anything about it but she held a really nice point (the photo) and I gave her a ton of chicken and praise for it. The second was a quick point but it flushed really far away so there was no finding it again. Both birds weren't visible when she found them, they were true scent points and she was strategically looking for them so that was super cool!

She's still in heat and super sensitive right now so I wouldn't shoot over her anyway, but I'm getting pretty accurate with my slingshot so I'm hoping we can connect on something this fall - both for her pointing steady and me aiming properly. She gets more steady and more sure of herself every time we go out so it's only a matter of time!

[script-a-world]

Hello! I am building a scifi setting, and in this setting there aren't really any known planets besides Earth that would naturally support life (not human life, anyway), but over hundreds of years humans have terraformed several planets to support life in order to build settlements there, and that has included introducing plants and animals from Earth to those planets (my understanding is that terraforming, at least on this sort of degree, isn't really likely to be practical in real life, but that's something I am willing to handwave and go "it works because i say it works, just trust me bro" on).

Once that is done, the wild animals and wild plants brought over to a terraformed planet generally speaking are never transported from one planet to another again, although domestic animals, plants that are farmed, and humans themselves, might be. And I can see insects and microbes getting inadvertently transported from place to place among different kinds of cargo, since they're small enough to escape notice (I mean, the most venomous spider species in my country is a population of spiders that exists in one natural history museum because there were some accidentally brought over in a shipment of stuff from South America in the 60s or so. I can well see that happening on a planetary scale in a scifi story, too - but anyway)

My question is, if you have a population of animals that's isolated from other populations of the species to that degree, how quickly do you start seeing clear differences in the traits that different populations have? Like I don't expect to have entirely different species yet in a matter of centuries, but if you have a population of, say, roe deer, that would have been entirely isolated from other populations for like five hundred years, could there be differences between that population and other populations that a layman might be able to spot?

Tex: If everything’s on the same planet, it’s going to be difficult to truly isolate an area or population, because it’s going to be affected by the same planetary conditions, such as orbit around the nearest star, the ocean and its environment, etc.

Darwin’s finches, for example, have distinct variations in phenotype despite being effectively the same species (a similar situation for the Galapagos tortoises), which shows that a species’ genotypes can still appear as different physical traits given different environmental stresses.

It’s difficult to tell when evolutionary changes occur, because this depends on not only the species, but the environmental changes, the speed of such changes, and how deeply they impact a species in question. There currently isn’t any research being done on evolutionary characteristics of animals and their niche environments that I know of which has already been occurring for a hundred or more years, as much of our current generation of science is relatively recent given the scope of technological evolution.

Taking a look at the niche environment, how it differs from the originating environment (if this is part of the equation), how the two differ, and what environmental pressures are exerted would be a good start in extrapolating how phenotypic expressions might be altered without delving into the much more complex subject of epigenetic changes.

Utuabzu: Gravity, levels of light, the colour of the star, the length of the year and day and the degree of axial tilt are all going to have to be adapted to, since there's not that much that can be done about them. Organisms that evolved seasonal behaviours are going to lose those after a while on a planet with negligible axial tilt and thus negligible seasons. Organisms on tidally locked planets are going to lose traits dependent on a day-night cycle. Organisms on a high-gravity planet will get stockier, while those on a lower gravity one will get taller and thinner.

Photosynthesis is dependent on the interaction of a photosynthetic pigment with certain wavelengths of light. The dominant photosynthetic pigment on Earth is chlorophyll a, which reflects away the wavelengths we call 'green' and absorbs most of the rest of the visible spectrum. One theory for why it's dominant is that because the sun's emissions peak around the green part of the spectrum, this protects the photosynthetic organism from getting burnt - one point in favour of this is that non-chlorophyll a using photosynthesizers tend to favour shade. But around a different star, or even further out in our own solar system, chlorophyll a might not be ideal, and plants that use other proteins would reflect different spectra of light, and thus appear different colours.

But in terms of evolutionary timescale, it depends on generation length. Things evolve based on mutations that offer some benefit to the offspring of the mutant, leading them to be more successful than their peers and have more offspring in turn, which then are also more successful than their peers without the mutation and thus spread it through the genepool. A civilisation that can terraform planets on a reasonable timescale can almost certainly use genetic engineering as a shortcut to ensure their new biosphere can thrive immediately.

So you have a fair bit of leeway in terms of what you can do with other planets' biospheres. Terraforming on a scale shorter than thousands of years would already take technology well beyond anything we have, so you can handwave a fair bit.

[deerydear]

A few months ago... I was watching this video:

My thoughts kind of keep coming back to it.

Something that stands out to me is the sort of focus on 'internal perception': "Do you feel like you were bullied?" "Did you feel ostracized?" "Did you feel singled out?" Sort of a focus on negative emotions.

I think there's a process of rationalization which can effect memory. If I focused my attention in a particular way, I might be able to remember some occasions "in which other people were trying (or intending) to be rude assholes according to their own metric", but I was not affected by it. I have my own metric. I have my own senses. I'm a full person.

In my childhood I was more likely to become a bully than to 'be bullied'.

So I don't remember the sorts of behaviours that she describes.

My family were also atheist immigrants, so I already felt like most people were of an alien species (lol, christians). (I like to try to be impartial and inoffensive on my blog... but I thought it was funny. Sorry.) Culture has such a strong impact. If two people disagree on the fundamental organization and primacy of reality... then...?

So I really just avoided most people. I actually had assumed that devout christianity was more common than it really was in the area I grew up. I remember feeling afraid to be 'found out' to be atheist. There is a minority of crazy, nutso hardcore 'christians' who might wanna persecute someone for being areligious, or of a different religion. I really just did not want to draw untoward attention to my family. I got used to lying in certain situations (like impressing my friends' parents).

The 'stimming' thing is interesting. because I do often do stuff like that. hahaha, Sometimes the people around me will start copying my behaviour!

(the following comic is read right-to-left)

I feel kinship with birds and dogs. I often imagine the emotions of the individuals I grew up with, when I'm expressing myself. I think I had more dog friends than human friends... (statistically). but I did have many other human friends. I didn't lack it. Again... Atheist in a religious society. Why bother with people who will get angry over strange stuff?

I guess the tone I want to convey in my response is: "I don't feel judged, I'm judging you. (or not... Everything is situational.)"

She discusses 'being bothered by sounds, smells, senses', but... in my evaluation of myself, I have no baseline for an outside perspective, and I honestly do not want to take other people's opinions seriously. Different people can have wildly different opinions of what is normal, even just depending on how their family raised them. Different cultures have differing standards of polite behaviour. Something that would be considered incredibly rude in Japan, might be nothing to balk at in the USA. (Something still might be rude, but normal.)

I also just have a strong oppositional knee-jerk reaction to anyone attempting to give me any kind of label. (maybe not any kind...)

"Oh, you're not one of THOSE people, right?"

See also: discussion the "autistic kill-switch".

"Feelings like this make feel like I’m not actually autistic sometimes, and I was just a poorly-socialized, privileged brat when I was younger."

I feel the idea of an autism diagnosis is very... controversial. I remember reading a blog post written by a mother whose son could be considered autistic, but her psychiatrist said that he would be unable to give him a formal diagnosis because: "the diagnostic criteria are based on behaviours that someone begins to show when they have become traumatized by being socially ostracized". I'm paraphrasing. He went on to say: "if your son were showing these specific signs of being traumatized, I would be able to give him a formal diagnosis [which may be used to seek formal accomodations, such as in classes, etc.], but since he is happy and healthy, and you are raising him well, he does not meet the official metric for an autism diagnosis."

I remember a discussion which mentioned a family of people who could have been diagnosed 'autistic', but none of them had been. They all saw eachother as normal, (or perhaps that they had their own quirks as a family). No one was ostracized from the family for being 'weird' due to "[what some people refer to as ]'autistic behaviours'."

Aghhhhhhh...

Then I also have more questions.

Excerpt from an old blog post:

She was assuming I was autistic because I was "acting shy." She had no idea of my psychological makeup, my life in the past… anything. Just, "you're shy". Maybe it isn't "autism". Maybe it's the same thing that happens to dogs if they aren't properly socialized with other dogs and people, in their childhoods. They become 'gitchy'. They aren't sure how to react, because they lack experience in certain situations. Some dogs become aggressive. They may see their owner as 'the only safe person', and everyone else as a possible threat. I grew up being raised with puppies. I remember my mom telling me about this --- why it was so important to take the dogs out for walks, to meet new people and animals. Maybe it is possible to change. Maybe it's "getting used to a set of circumstances", which can be adjusted. Can old dogs learn new tricks? Is that up to you? I just... really don't like this idea of "innateness".

I had been doing a little bit of research into this question, a few months ago...

I feel like I don't have an objective perspective on myself. but who does. Anyone? Anyone at all?

Should I get my blood tested for melancholy, next?

I still think this is a very interesting article in reference to cultural ideas of psychological affliction. I feel like the principle might have bearing on the discussion of an autism diagnosis...

plus, the sort of 'effect of the researcher' upon the subject studied.

Does a researcher hold bias? Which way does it tend to go? Can a researcher influence the people? Such as through asking leading questions... or segregating an autistic child into a different type of school experience from the majority of other children. That experience itself can also influence a child in ways that I don't think should be ignored. I wouldn't say "cultural bias causes all behaviour that might be labelled autistic", probably not... but in some discussions of ASD behaviour, I notice that some diagnosed people's self-image and understanding of "their behaviour vs. other people's" has been deeply influenced by what other people have told them, especially doctors and other authority figures. I think that 'making a strong statement whenever one doesn't know something for certain' may cause problems down the line. I think that's the type of mistake that some doctors have made, in the past. "YOU'RE different, YOU'RE wrong, and no one is like you. You're different from all the other children." I imagine what that does to a vulnerable child's self-perception. I hear it in some people's narration.

I don't like to share many details about my family, but I never thought I was weird. I thought the outside world was weird... or I embraced being seen as weird, because I thought it was funny, pseudo-'humble', subversive... etc.

I still don't think I consider myself autistic, but I feel like my knee-jerk reaction is lessening. It's becoming more of a neutral subject.

"Would the man who works as the detective L personally consider himself to be autistic?"

Oooh, an incindiary question...

I think yelyahnaloj had said something on the subject like: "I want to understand the underlying mechanisms and themes of this, not to separate reality into discrete boxes". I would concur. I want to understand human psychology, how people think, and why we do certain things, and how we benefit and harm ourselves and eachother.

Paraphrase again. I remember the sentiment but not the exact words! xD

[tyrannuspitch]

been thinking about worldbuilding and. oh my god guys. i know it's a throwaway joss whedon line, but even so... i think bilgesnipe might be jotun wildlife, not asgardian.

what do we know about bilgesnipe?

they have an insulting-sounding name, which at first glance inspection doesn't make much sense. normally, a "snipe" is a small game bird. this could just be a sort of joke, like a tall man nicknamed "tiny", but it could also imply that asgardians see these creatures primarily as things to shoot at. (fun fact: the word "sniper" actually comes from the amount of skill it takes to shoot snipe! bilgesnipe definitely aren't small targets, but they might still be hard to take down.)

meanwhile, "bilge" means the bottom of a ship, and the water that gathers inside it. this might imply that these creature live somewhere dirty... or that they tend to try to sink ships? (let's also remember that asgardian ships often travel the air, not the sea.)

thor summarises bilgesnipe as: "huge, scaly, big antlers". this doesn't precisely match the jotun creature we see in t1 (which i've taken to calling a dragon, for lack of other terms), but it's close. that creature is the size of a whale, with hairless, leathery blue skin and spines down its back - which could easily lead to the misconception that it was scaly. between this creature and the jotuns themselves, massive size and tough skin seem like they might be typical traits of species from jotunheim.

thor calls bilgesnipe destructive and repulsive, and uses them as an example of "uncivilised" behaviour. this reflects asgardian attitudes towards the jotun people, but it's an unusual level of animosity to hold towards an animal - especially considering that aggressive megafauna, even "exotic" ones, are often valorised by hyper-military cultures (all those european coats of arms with lions and tigers...), unless they're frequently in direct opposition.

so what is this opposition? IRL the mediaeval norse has an ambivalent relationship to wolves, because wolves preyed on their livestock. but bilgesnipes have antlers, which, at least on earth, are a herbivore trait. deer/etc can be aggressive when competing for mates or defending their young, but the danger is simple enough to avoid if you just stay out of their way. they're rarely seen as monsters for it...

but large herbivores are very often domesticated as beasts of burden - horses, donkeys, llamas, camels, elephants, and in the arctic, reindeer. and, depending on social context and the hardiness of the animals themselves, some of these beasts of burden go on to be used in warfare.

we already know that jotuns have domesticated large carnivores for military use (or maybe, originally, hunting) - specifically, they run down enemy foot-soldiers like prey on command. it's not a stretch to say there might be other species jotuns use for other military purposes.

SO. specifically. i think bilgesnipe could be giant jotun war-deer, trained to rake and crash low-flying enemy ships ("bilge"-snipe), and to stampede enemy armies ("destroy everything in their path".)

of course, the phrase (idiom?) "battling like bilgesnipe" itself could very easily refer to some natural phenomenon like rutting stags, as a metaphor for hypermasculine competitiveness, rather than anything about the animals in a real military context... but the way thor describes these creatures and the extreme negative attitude he takes to them still feel like something more to me. (and it's just more fun that way.)

(and finally, since it didn't flow above: thor assumes that midgard has, or at least knows about, bilgesnipe. and yes, this could be read as implying they're a completely everyday animal to thor, and therefore asgardian - but i would argue it could also go the other way: they're an exotic-but-familiar creature to him, like lions to a european, and he's carelessly conflating his "lesser realms", like a european thinking lions live in "the jungle".)

[harpagornis]

Multituberculate Earth: Birds

(As with all animal pages so far, this only goes so far into the Oligocene… for now)

At first, the avifauna of this timeline evolved much as ours. Only the toothless crown birds survived the KT event (though outliers like Qinornis may indicate other lineages survived briefly; one study did note the similarities between pelagornithids and ichthyornithids, but it hasn’t made the plunge), several lineages quickly producing megafauna to replace non-avian dinosaurs and other great reptiles. Gastornithiforms and ratites occupied large herbivore niches on land, pelagornithids and lithornithids attained large wingspans as competing pterosaurs ceased to exist and giant penguins and plotopterids were the first vertebrates to occupy large predatory niches at sea (barring sharks of course). To say nothing of the massive variety of smaller birds like stem-tropicbirds, the passerine-like zygodactylids and carnivorous parrots.

But the absence of an Azolla Event put avian evolution in a very different track from the Eocene onwards. For starters, without a mid-Eocene cooling to alter forest biomes, lithornithids and presbyornithids didn’t decline, thus preventing an opening for several lineages like cranes, storks and pelecaniforms. Many groups that depended on the cooling temperatures, like seagulls and relatives, also did not get the opening they wished for. Some modern groups you might assume quintessential, like ducks and shorebirds, were either greatly crippled or did not get to rise.

Likewise, the evolution of flying mammals put some pressures on birds that our bats didn’t have, but for the most part both groups managed to co-exist. Niche partitioning is easy when you can fly anywhere to get resources, after all, and birds are no strangers to it given how they co-existed with pterosaurs and other Mesozoic flyers for over one hundred million years.

By far the greatest challenge faced by birds thus far was the Grand Coupure, leading to a dramatic collapse of forest habitats. For European and Balkanatolian flightless birds it was particularly hard as their isolation in Europe came to a drastic end, but several flightless lineages remained in the Oligocene.

Because there are lots of Cenozoic bird groups, some more understood than others, this is something of a work in progress. However, I will list the bird groups that I have most assuredly set in stone.

Palaeognaths

The so called “old jaws” might be something of a misnomer, as some Cretaceous birds already had a neognath palate and their own palate is much more advanced than in some other early birds, but regardless they do invoke that prehistoric mystique. In our timeline the sole survivors are the flightless ratites + tiny tinamous, animals that truly seem to come from the era of the dinosaurs.

In this timeline, ratites similarly diversified, with rheas and other poorly understood taxa in South America and Antarctica, members of the cassowary/emu line in Australia, elephant birds in Madagascar (and possibly mainland Afro-Arabia) and a variety of stem-ostriches in North America, Europe and Asia. But it is another group, the flying lithornithids, that remain the most diverse and arguably spectacular group.

In our timeline, lithornithids started the Cenozoic in style, dispersing across the northern continents as forest dwelling probers like modern woodcocks. They were far more efficient flyers than our timeline’s surviving flying paleognaths, the tinamous, there being evidence of migratory behaviour and stork-like soaring, and some species attained quite large sizes. In our timeline the mid-Eocene cooling seems to have doomed them, but in the prolonged hothouse conditions of this timeline they managed to acclimate and diversify further.

Some lineages were lost in the Grand Coupure, but those that survived were ready for the spread of open habitats. Many forms occupy niches taken in our world by cranes and storks, prowling the steppes or stalking the swamps for small animals and nutrious plant matter. Others have diversified as shorebird analogues, probing along the coastlines. Some conversely became smaller and hoopoe-like; lithornithids were already more efficient perchers than other palaeognaths, so a few managed to capitalize on arboreal niches.

Though efficient flyers, lithornithids lack tails, relying mostly on their own wings for steering (for reference, see videos on tailless kites or hawks). Like in their ratite cousins it is the male that protects the eggs and offpsring, though in some derived species the young are superprecocial and can fly soon after birth, a condition seen in many Mesozoic birds. Many species have glossy eggs and feathers like cassowaries.

Other than lithornithids, there seems to be some other flying palaeognaths about. The stem-ostrich Eogrus for example is traditionally considered capable of at least some flying abilities, while flying stem-kiwis must be around somewhere given Proapteryx. And, of course, there’s the ancestors of tinamous, which have not yet debuted in the fossil reccord for some reason (in both timelines).

Pelagornithids

The so called “pseudo-toothed” birds due to tooth-like serrations in their bills, these seabirds are a mystery. Sometimes they are grouped among albatrosses and other higher waterbirds, other times they’re considered closely related to waterfowl, with most recent studies putting them in a polytomy between both groups. As mentioned above there is a study that does note similarities between their jaws and those of aquatic toothed seabirds, and given that their serrations seem to share a true molecular origin with teeth I wouldn’t be surprised if they were surviving toothed seabirds all along.

Anyways, besides the “teeth” (which were acquired late in life, implying prolonged parental care) the most notable feature of pelagornithids is their size. These are easily the largest flying birds of all time, some reaching wingspans of over 7 meters. Because they lack the quadrupedal launching of flying mammals and pterosaurs, they compensated by become extremely lightweight like living kites, thus while they look fearsome they most hunt small, soft prey like squids. Its even possible they can’t flap their wings anymore, relying solely on thermal soaring like modern frigatebirds (and not dynamic soaring like albatrosses), to which they can be considered close analogues if much larger.

While the evolution of giant insulonycteriids might seem like a disaster for these enormous birds, in truth both groups get along just fine (most of the time). The giant flying mammals are most robust and can hunt proportionally larger prey and even dive, so if the pelagornithids are the frigatebirds the insulonycteriids are the albatrosses and gannets.

Pelagornithids in both timelines have been extrariordinarily resilient, surviving from the PETM and Grand Coupure in spite of their effects to the marine biosphere. They died out in our timeline just as humans evolved, for unclear reasons; we’ll see if they have better luck here.

Gastornithiformes

Like ratites gastornithiforms lost the ability to fly and attained large sizes, occupying the niches left by ceratopsians and other herbivorous dinosaurs. They are clearly galloanseres, though its currently debated if they are closer to waterfowl or to galliforms.

Like ratites, they attained a cosmopolitan distribution, with gastornithids in the northern continents, dromornithids in Australia and Brontornis in South America, though gastornithids disappeared from Asia and North America in the PETM. Unlike ratites they have massive, powerful beaks, apt to crush through seeds and harsh plant matter like branches. In Europe they in fact were the most common megafauna, with few large mammals, much like in our timeline. With the Grand Coupure the collapse of rainforests and the arrival of Asian predatory mammals they disappeared from the former island continent, but they continued to thrive in Australia and in South America.

Presbyornithids

Presbyornithids are a clade of long legged waterfowl that first evolved in the Cretaceous and attained a diversity peak during the Paleocene, before declining in the Eocene of our timeline, reduced to only the terrestrial, goose-like Wilaru by the Miocene. This is often attributed to competition with anatid waterfowl, but studies show that they were incapable of filter-feeding, so they must have occupied fairly different ecological niches at the water’s edge.

In this timeline, they kept thriving thanks to the continuous hotshouse conditions, and more overtly diversified in piscivorous and crustacean eater niches akin to those of shoebills, spoonbills and even pelicans and ibises. Consequently, many of these waterbirds did not evolve in this timeline.

A partiular clade related to Wilaru kept exploring terrestrial biomes. These developed a novel way to process food: chewing it. Yes, some birds can chew (even used in the past to explain phylogenetic relationships between cuckoos and mousebirds before genetics said nah), using the cranial kinesis common to all crown birds to slide the upper jaw against the lower jaw in a pestle and mortar like way.

These birds, the Chakranatids, found thus a way to not only process plant matter more efficient while minimising fermentation, so they for the most part retained the ability to fly. Still, some have become large flightless herbivores, a distant echo of the Mesozoic hadrosaurs.

Palaelodids

The niche of ducks was instead taken by a decidedly non-waterfowl clade: the palaeolodids, relatives to flamingos and grebes. Neither divers or specialised filter-feeders (barring some species), these birds are rather generalistic, adapted to swim and catch small animals and plants with their broad beaks. They first debuted in the Oligocene in both timelines, though they might have a potentially older origin given grebes and flamingos split further back in the Cenozoic and Eocene fossil birds like Juncitarsus seem to represent the last common ancestor between these three groups.

Coliiformes

(A suggestion by Tozarkt777 on reddit)

In our timeline’s Paleocene, before passerines had evolved and spread to the northern hemisphere, the songbird niche was held by the Coliformes, an order that now only includes the mousebirds in our timeline, but back then comprised of many more species and many more niches, from generalistic grain-feeders to raptorial forms. They were most diverse in the Paleocene and Eocene before losing ground from there onwards.

Their decline likely is attributed to the PETM, and with the warm conditions of Multituberculate Earth having been maintained, so did mousebird rule. These are now the dominant small birds in the northern and African canopies, passerines now mostly restricted to small insectivores and nectivores.

Cariamiformes

Represented by the vicious little seriemas in our timeline’s present, this group is best known for producing the infamous terror birds. However, a variety of other extinct groups also existed in the early Cenozoic, including another clade of infamous flightless killers, the bathornithids. Though known from usually more fragmentary remains, they too were incapable of flying and had deep, powerful beaks, well suited to tear flesh.

Proving that mammals still oughta fear theropods, the terror birds spread far and wide in the Eocene. Eleutherornis and relatives terrorised Europe while Lavocatavis and kin terrorised Africa; it is in fact unclear if terror birds evolved in the Old World and later raft/swam (or flew, if the last common ancestor still could fly) to South America like many mammals did or if inversely it went the other way around. We do know at least that Eleutherornis is a late comer to Europe as it arrived only in the mid-Eocene, so the group likely didn’t evolve there, though many other cariamiform groups were present, from the crow-like Salmila to the herbivorous, also flightless Strigogyps.

Meanwhile, South America was host to a larger diversity of terror birds, and across the sea North America was ruled by a large diversity of bathornithids. Both groups co-existed with predatory mammals in both timelines, and attained large sized species over two meters tall. The African and European species seem to have gone extinct in the Grand Coupure – the later doubtlessly affected by the extinction of indigenous prey and the arrival of new competitors – but the Americas saw an adaptive radiation in response to the spread of open grasslands. Predatory mammal groups may rise and fall, but these dinosaurs seem to be a constant, though for how long remains to be seen.

Besides large predatory forms, there are a variety of other poorly understood forms, like the aforementioned European species. Some, like Elaphrocnemus, appear to have been efficient flyers, less adapted to run like their terrestrial cousins but capable of soaring for long distances. while others like Qianshanornis seem to have been functionally similar to hawks and eagles. Most of these groups died out in the Grand Coupure, unable to cope with the loss of forest habitats.

[leviathanverse]

Another information about my HCD! Au dragon species. I feel like I am making dragon species for your au at this point, @mylou-doodlesworld. But I don't mind!

This species is inspired by Velociraptors and Speed Stingers!

--------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Species name:

Nickname is The Vengeful Shadow.

The Speedwraith.

What they can't do:

People have taken notice of how these dragons can't hunt alone.

What they can do:

They can run a lot faster than the subspecies of the Scaleless Firewing.

They can work as a pack to take down larger prey.

They can breathe a blue fire that can melt flesh and bone.

They can hunt up to 110 people in one night.

They can jump extremely high.

They can sense when to hunt a different species.

They can paralyze prey with the help of their tails.

Some people got a glimpse of their tails.

It is spiky with a massive knife shaped stinger at the end.

They can make sharp turns while running.

Life expectancy:

It is believed that they can roughly live between 159 to 300 years.

Dependency:

They are very dependant on their packmates.

They can't be independent, as it is not in their nature like some dragon species.

Rarity, information and locations:

These dragons hunt other dragons and humans alike.

These dragons reproduce quickly, and are like a plague.

Their locations are unknown.

They are not endangered or rare.

They are the most common dragons to encounter.

These dragons have dark colours that help them blend in the darkness of the night sky.

They hunt in packs that have thousands of pack members.

They are known to hunt and eat up to 12 people in 30 villages in one night.

They are easily at the top of the food chain.

They were known to have had only one predator that went extinct 67000 years ago.

Those that have seen them have not lived to tell the appearance or the tale of these fast dragons.

Eggs:

People have tracked these dragons to their dens, and found no eggs or remains of an egg that had hatched.

It is believed that they give live birth instead of laying eggs.

It is also believed that they might lay eggs and consume the eggshell to prevent any creature to locate them.

Egg colour spots and meaning:

As mentioned, it is believed that they give birth to live young.

No one has ever seen a young Speedwraith before.

How to tell an infertile and fertile egg apart:

It is believed that they give live birth instead of laying eggs.

So, instead of infertile eggs, they give birth to stillborn babies.

It is only a theory, as people don't know if they lay eggs or give live birth.

But people can be wrong, and they might or do lay eggs.

Males and females:

No one knows the difference between a male or female.

Or if they can reproduce asexually.

What people get wrong:

People mistake them for the other fast Wraith species.

Trust:

Don't even try to tame or train these dragons or earn their trust.

They only see you as prey and nothing else.

Whether you helped one of their pack members, consider yourself as good as dead.

These dragons are said to be untrainable.

Nesting:

Their nests are made out of leaves that people have never seen before.

There are remains of their prey at the edge of the nest like a barrier.

Their nests can range from 4ft- 7ft.

Both in width and length.

How they are during nesting season:

People took notice that these dragons hunt more frequently in Autumn than in the other seasons.

They also tend to be more aggressive during this season.

Many speculated as them nesting or provide food for their young.

Personality and behaviour:

These dragons are hard to get a read on when it comes to their personality and behaviour.

If you asked what their personality was, then the people in the villages they frequently target and hunt will say nothing good about these incredible and majestic creatures.

" They are monsters, I tell you! They are careless and are nothing but cruel! They show no mercy!"

Others would say the exact same thing about these incredible and intelligent creatures.

Fun facts:

Did you know that these dragons are the only known species to have the most kill count from any other dragon species?

[tammyhybrid21]

Part the Third

SCAVENGER TIME BABY!

Well actually mostly just me trying to justify the idea that scavengers are colony insects and not monkeys but anyway...

Also scavs are really annoying to try and draw consistently, like what even is their anatomy thankyou?! Also most of these kind of lead into each other more than the Iterator and Slugcat headcanon thoughts because I have, strong opinions... more than I expected since I am kind of indifferent to Scavs in the game(well outside of Artificer’s campaign where it’s very much, please leave me alone or die faster)

I so dearly wish I could rant all about insect wars and how they relate to scavs, but it’s not something I can really sum up succinctly. But it’s in their fight first nature and all over how they react to things. Of course it’s not the start and end of my headcanon, but it’s certainly one of the big things. Reminds me especially of how ant colonies are, although scavs in Rain World are much more universal in their interactions as the reputation system goes...

Colony Insects and good lord do they change the environment. Also I directly relate this point back to the Metropolis scavs. Who booooy will I talk about them again later. I’m working on individual scribble headcanons somewhere down the line and man-- I think the implications of the scavengers in Metropolis say SO MUCH. Both for Scavengers and Five Pebbles.

It’s a bit of a miscommunication but plain terms...

Pebbles might have had better luck dealing with things if he invited Slugcats in over Scavs... because as insect based colony creatures-- Scavs going to look at the environment and go “we will make you work for us!” while Slugcats-- rodents find their way in and adapt to the environment instead... I mean look at how Mice and Rats live out in our world... sure they can and will make new dens, but more often they just find a space and adapt.

Insects though, hah.

I HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS!

But seriously, decoys! I think the pearls are double timing. It’s not just that they’re shiny and nice to look at. But it’s protection. This is PURE headcanon, but if they really are insects, well Eggs. And again kind of going on ants because there are... some that will bring pebbles down into their nests and well-- yeah.

I also have more thoughts on the hoarding behaviour, but it’s hard to fully explain... Also yeah, Scavs are army ants... well not really, but one of the big species that I immediately thought of. Especially once you have Chieftain and they just send a whole Guard Squad to “help” you sometimes. Like good lord, does anyone else find that their “help” is WORSE that when they don’t care about you and are neutral?! Because lordy I do.

Hah, I mean, they do value karma flowers if you trade them. So I just extrapolated. It’s probably to do with the reincarnation cycle. Also I have... other thoughts on that, but it’s minor. Bet the ancients were more likely to become scavs down the line, those who did-- Scavs or Scugs... but I lean more to scavs for... reasons.

Pearls as well the masks of the elites. Also another point of the insect wars comparison. Because man, when you look at the game there are different tribes kind of... depending on which regions you’re in. Although, it’s very possible that they’re all the same colony under the one Scav Chief since well-- The reputation with them is Universal between Moon and Pebbles’ grounds.

Oh, and just a bonus picture at the end of this all...

Not entirely serious, but-- just something funny I suppose.

[prof-peach]

Professor do you know the best way to quickly and carefully remove a whole bushel of cottonee and whimsicott? During a windstorm the got blown into the sanctuary and all the dragons are on edge.

Depends on how hostile or set into the area they are. If they're too waterlogged they can't fly, dry em out and let them go. If they seem aggressive, they're probably scared or nervous, so don't approach them if this seems to be the case. We use Jumpluff or Tropius to aid them out of situations where humans would aggravate things, the species seem to have an affinity for each other, and usually listen to aid given by other pokemon, far better than orders given from humans. You however may not have these pokemon available. Try a Flapple, if you're a dragon keeper, you might have one around, otherwise ask local trainers to aid you with the issue. I don't really know enough to give you a good detailed plan, but talk to them if they're not being grouchy, or let em dry out and use a gentle air current to whip through the area to catch them and move them on. These pokemon don't tend to stay put, so it wont be long before they move on regardless.

If they have young with them, are semi rooting (have root nodes near their feet area) or seem distressed or displaced, things may need to be handled differently. Some can become sick, and spread it to the group, take note of any unusual behaviour, dizziness without motion, hostility past defence, perhaps even lethargy if they're really struggling. I cant say for sure what the best plan is without more info, but this will give you a place to start.

Those are some nervous dragons to be bothered by this kind of grass type.

[bloededhoine]

world building cause twn doesn't part 8: nonhumans

this is easily the geekiest part of the series. and it's a Very geeky series. because sapkowski's worldbuilding is waaay more extensive than i have the time, ability, or desire to convey, i'm sticking with races both sentient and important

colour code cause i fucking love colour codes - already happened/introduced, probably s2, important background info, stuff that might be in the prequel, extras

series masterpost

dopplers

dopplers, also known as vexlings, shifters, mimics, doubles, imitators, or pavrats, are a nonhuman race that can take on the appearance of nearly anyone they encounter

before mass migrations of humans, dopplers primarily inhabited the forests and plateaus around the city of novigrad, where they would transform into wolves and pack animals to hunt

their abilities are pretty impressive, dopplers can not only mimic appearance but also voice, personality, skills, behaviours, and knowledge. dopplers can even turn parts of their bodies into pieces of clothing or other objects

however, there are some limitations

dopplers can't transform into someone/thing with dramatically more mass than they have, are burned by silver, and can't drop anything they created (if they did it would kind of turn into a fleshy goop)

we've already met a doppler in twn, this sexy sexy man

BUT

it is important to note that this doppler is a huge deviation from sapkowski's lore. dopplers are pretty much always exceptionally kind and gentle. a lot of times they use their abilities to appear threatening (big teeth, sharp claws etc) because they really don't want to hurt anyone.

when dopplers aren't mimicking another form, they aren't exactly pretty. they're bald, short, have beady yellow eyes, and kinda look like they're made from soft clay

here's the hexer doppler

the most notable doppler is dudu biberveldt, who i mentioned as the halfling dainty biberveldt's fake cousin. dudu's actual name is tellico lunngrevink letorte, but dainty decided to help dudu live in novigrad by adopting him as his fake cousin.

dragons

dragons are fucking awesome. you know it, i know it, and zerrikanians know it. witcher dragons are especially awesome

they are the only being, other than cats, that can naturally harness and absorb the force of chaos

there are multiple subtypes, but most dragons fall into one of four: black dragons, green dragons, red dragons, and white dragons.

black dragons are the largest, and primarily live in swamps and wetlands where they bathe in mud. they have extremely hard scales and don't breathe fire, but an acid that causes burns similar to those from mustard gas.

green dragons (right there) are the most prominent yet smallest species of dragon, mainly living in forested areas and breathe highly flammable chlorine gas.

red dragons mainly live in hills and mountain caves and can breathe fire hot enough to melt metal

white dragons are one of the rarest species and live in the far north, and can breathe frost

however, if you watched the witcher netflix as i assume you did, you may remember golden dragons. these dragons are so rare and exceptional that they are not usually included with other species. they breathe steam and fire and can shapeshift into any living being

all dragons communicate through telepathy, although golden dragons can speak when they are in the form of a species that can speak

humans are pretty divided on the topic of dragons, with zerrikanians worshiping them and nordlings hating them.

because they are incredibly intelligent and emotional, witchers (generally) refuse to hunt them

borkh three jackdaws, also known as villentrenmerth, is the only golden dragon we know. there he is right there.

ASSASSINS OF KINGS SPOILERS NEXT TWO BULLET POINTS

the other dragon from twn was a green dragon named myrgtabrakke, borkh's mate. their daughter is named saesenthessis, also known as saskia the dragonslayer (an alias she took to explain her extensive knowledge of dragons) and the virgin of aedirn

because saskia is part golden dragon, she can shapeshift, although is much more limited than her father. she can basically only be a human looking woman with blonde hair or a huge dragon.

cut because this part is getting REALLY long

godlings

ah godlings. i love them so much. they're adorable and precious. they usually look somewhat like a human child, but with blue skin and large amber or green eyes. they don't wear much clothes, their focus is in accessories like jewelry, flowers, or tattoos

that's johnny, a holding in wild hunt.

godlings are incredibly rare, and are easily confused with young goblins. they primarily live in swamps near drowners, but aren't afraid of them.

they're quite mischievous but kind hearted, many have happy go lucky personalities and love just having fun. i adore godlings. i've said it once and i'll say it again.

higher vampires

definitely the most important group on this list, higher vampires are incredibly powerful and intelligent. they can shapeshift within certain limits, generally either looking like a human or a large terrifying bat. they also have some telepathic abilities - they can basically make you fall asleep and forget stuff

scary wooo

higher vampires do not need to drink blood to survive. some don't drink blood at all. when they do, it's like a human drinking alcohol. on full moons, groups of higher vampires go out partying and get white girl wasted

although all higher vampires have the same basic abilities, each individual has one skill they are exceptional in.

most find humans harmless but annoying, like mosquitos. they don't really like interacting with humans, which works out pretty well as higher vampires can blend in very well, even a witcher's medallion can't detect one

higher vampires also have three distinct cultures, the tdet in the far east, the ammurun across the great sea, and the gharasham in the northern realms

they are really really hard (or impossible, depending on canon) to kill. based on the books, you basically need to disintegrate them. based on the games, only higher vampires can kill other higher vampires, but humans can get close

we only meet one in the books, emiel regis rohellec terzieff-godefroy. he goes by regis for short. regis was an "alcoholic" in his youth, and has since abstained from blood or any other substance. he's incredibly old, by the end of twn season 1 he'd be 425 years old. as for regis' "special ability", he's just kind. he's an incredibly gentle and loving person. that's it. i love him.

merpeople

probably one you're already familiar with! merpeople are intelligent humanoids that inhabit the great sea. mermaids are notably gorgeous, having green hair and tails, and their scales are prized alchemy ingredients

sapkowski's mermaids can breathe above water, but the sun burns their skin so they don't stay at the surface for very long.

merpeople are incredibly powerful, they can summon krakens and the sea-dragon like race of vodyanoy respect their authority

they use their own language that's quite similar to hen llinge, but more lyrical sounding.

nymphs

nymphs are a humanoid race primarily based around nature. they have 5 subspecies, dryads (including hamadryads), leimoniad, naiad, nereid, and oread.

dryads, called eerie wives by humans and aen woedbeanna by elves, are the most prevalent, primarily living in the brokilon forest. some have human skin with olive undertones, but others are green. they usually have dark brown or green hair which is usually worn in dreadlocks (breaking my promise of not being overtly and annoyingly political in this series yet again - the dryads, especially in the netflix adaptation, are classic magical n*gress stereotypes. but more on that later.)

this is a lore-accurate one that i LOVE

dryads have incredibly strong connections with nature and magic, although it is really rare for a dryad to be a source. dryads are able to draw energy from trees, but rarely do because they don't want to hurt the trees. support dryads and take the bus.

all dryads are women. all of them. they make babies by basically luring men into the forest and doing the adult hokey pokey. also why dryads aren't really a fan of witchers, who don't make the baby butter (i am so sorry)

however, dryads can also turn a girl of another race into one of their own through the use of magic. the water of brokilon has some mutating quality that makes young girls forget their human past and physically turn into dryads, although it is less effective as the girls are older. the dryads tried to do this to ciri, but given that she's a source, nothing happened. generally, this process is done to girls who wander into brokilon, but some dryads will abduct peasants from outside the forest if they need more dryads.

here's twn dryads... yikes

this is where i think the whole racism thing becomes a bit too obvious. "uncivilized" women who live in the forest and have dreadlocks and abduct young girls from "civilized" areas?? in twn they leaned even further into this, having one of the two black women they cast be a dryad and replacing the usual bows and arrows with spears, a less sophisticated weapon. again, this series is about the lore, not the political implications of it, but it is important to keep in mind

dryads are excellent at archery, shooting anyone who comes within 80 metres of the forest. through their connection with nature, they have highly advanced medicine and use glowing fungi as a source of light.

hamadryads are a specific type of dryad that is incredibly connected with her tree. because of this connection they have exceptionally strong magical and healing capabilities, but will also go insane and die if their tree dies.

like merpeople, dryads use a more melodic dialect of hen llinge

leimoniads are a type of nymph that lived exclusively in meadows, but are practically extinct due to wars with humans

naiads, also called rusalki, are nymphs that live in lakes and rivers, although a few live with the dryads in brokilon. naiads are very similar to dryads, although they tend to have very light skin with very dark hair, webbed hands, and can dry out on land

naiads rarely speak common, live in small groups, and have highly developed telepathic abilities

nereids are nymphs that inhabit the great sea, often living closely with merpeople. they usually have blueish skin with either blue or white hair and have some telepathic abilities, though not to the extent of naiads.

oreads are nymphs of the mountains, which, like leimoniads, are nearly extinct due to human conquests.

succubi/incubi

succubi (female) and incubi (male) are creatures which look like incredibly attractive humans but with horns and goat legs. they seduce humans, first in dreams and then physically, using their prey's energy to sustain themselves, often to the point of the human's exhaustion or death

our man eskel has a soft spot for them...

sylvans

sylvans, another race we already met, are exceptionally rare. like, practically extinct. they live mainly in the woodlands of the northern realms and have goat-like faces with yellow eyes, horns, cloven hooves, and tails

my man torque is quite possibly one of the last sylvans on the continent

they are distantly related to elves, and the two races tend to coexist quite well

generally quite mischievous and merry, highly enjoying pranks and parties. they can use simple spells and are mainly herbivores

sylvans live around 100 years and are highly sought after by dryads for their... ahem... reproductive capabilities

unicorns

yep, we got unicorns! i fucking love unicorns and still kinda think they're real. camels are real and those lumpy fuckers are way weirder than a horse with a spike on its head.

anyways

unicorns are highly advanced beings, they can travel between worlds and use telepathy. they don't really like the "less advanced" races, mostly staying around to observe them. they have distinct societies led by a council of elders and tend to avoid evil

these unicorns are badasses

unicorns strongly despise the use of the force but encourage the power of destiny. in the context of pavetta's betrothal feast, a unicorn would not be happy with pavetta's little source hurricane thing, but would encourage geralt to follow the law of surprise

in of the witcher, unicorns are very important because of their world-hopping capabilities. the aen elle, unfortunately, realized this and began enslaving unicorns to help them plunder other worlds. this turned into a massive conflict between the unicorns and elves.

[balkanradfem]

When we see a tree, we tend to think of it as a singular unit – just as we think of ourselves as individuals. But biologists have discovered that it’s not quite so simple. They have come to understand that trees depend on certain kinds of fungi in the soil: hair-thin structures called hyphae that interlace with cells in the roots of trees to form mycorrhiza. The fungi benefit by receiving someof the sugar that plants produce through photosynthesis (which it cannot otherwise make), while the trees benefit in turn by receiving elements like phosphorous and nitrogen that they cannot produce for themselves, and without which they cannot survive.

But this reciprocity is not confined to just two parties in this ancient relationship. Invisible fungal networks also connect the roots of different trees to one another, sometimes over great distances, forming an underground internet that allows them to communicate, and even to share energy, nutrients and medicine. The ecologist Robert Macfarlane explains how this works: A dying tree might divest itself of its resources to the benefit of the community, for example, or a young seedling in a heavily shaded understory might be supported with extra resources by its stronger neighbours. Even more remarkably, the network also allows plants to send one another warnings. A plant under attack from aphids can indicate to a nearby plant that it should raise its defensive response before the aphids reach it.

It has been known for some time that plants communicate above ground in comparable ways, by means of airborne hormones. But such warnings are more precise in terms of source and recipient when sent by means of the myco-net. 16 Trees co-operate. They communicate. They share. Not only among members of the same species, but across species barriers: Douglas firs and birches feed each other. And it’s not just trees; we now know that all plants – except for a handful of species – have this same relationship with mycorrhiza. Just as with our gut bacteria, these findings challenge how we think about the boundaries between species. Is a tree really an individual? Can it really be conceived as a separate unit? Or is it an aspect of a broader, multi-species organism?

There’s also something else going on here – something perhaps even more revolutionary. Dr Suzanne Simard, a professor in the department of forest & conservation at the University of British Columbia, has argued that mycorrhizal networks among plants operate like neural networks in humans and other animals; they function in remarkably similar ways, passing information between nodes. And just as the structure of neural networks enables cognition and intelligence in animals, mycorrhizal networks provide similar capacities to plants. Recent research shows that the network not only facilitates transmission, communication and co-operation – just like our neurons do – it also facilitates problem-solving, learning, memory and decision-making.

These words are not just metaphorical. The ecologist Monica Gagliano has published groundbreaking research on plant intelligence, showing that plants remember things that happen to them, and change their behaviour accordingly. In other words, they learn. In a recent interview with Forbes, she insisted: ‘My work is not about metaphors at all; when I talk about learning, I mean learning. When I talk about memory, I mean memory.’ Indeed, plants actively change their behaviour as they encounter new challenges and receive messages about the changing world around them. Plants sense: they see, hear, feel and smell, and they respond accordingly. If you’ve ever seen time-lapse footage of a vine growing up a tree, you’ll have an idea of what this looks like in action: that vine is no automaton – it’s sensing, moving, balancing, solving problems, trying to figure out how to navigate new terrain. The more we learn, the stranger (or perhaps more familiar?) it all becomes. Simard’s work shows that trees can recognise their own relatives through mycorrhizal networks. Older ‘mother’ trees can identify nearby saplings that came from their own seeds, and they use this information to decide how to allocate resources in times of stress. Simard also describes how trees seem to have ‘emotional’ responses to trauma in a way that’s not dissimilar to animals. After a machete whack or during an aphid attack, their serotonin levels change (yes, they have serotonin, along with a number of neurochemicals that are common in animal nervous systems), and they start pumping out emergency messages to their neighbours.

Of course, none of this is to say that plant intelligence is exactly like that of animals. In fact, scientists warn that our urge to constantly compare the intelligence of some species with that of others is exactly the problem: it ends up blinding us to how other kinds of intelligence might work. Set out in search of a brain and you’ll never even notice the mycorrhiza that have been pulsing through the earth, evolving right under our feet, for 450 million years. This research is just taking off, and we have no idea where it might lead. But Simard is careful to point out that it’s not exactly new: If you listen to some of the early teachings of the Coast Salish and the Indigenous people along the western coast of North America, they knew [about these insights] already. It’s in the writings and in the oral history.

The idea of the mother tree has long been there. The fungal networks, the below-ground networks that keep the whole forest healthy and alive, that’s also there. That these plants interact and communicate with each other, that’s all there. They used to call the trees the tree people … Western science shut that down for a while and now we’re getting back to it.

Trees aren’t only connected with each other. They are also connected with us. Over the past few years, research into human–tree relationships has yielded some truly striking findings. A team of scientists in Japan conducted an experiment with hundreds of people around the country. They asked half of the participants to walk for fifteen minutes through a forest, and the other half to walk through an urban setting, and then they tested their emotional states. In every case, the forest walkers experienced significant mood improvements when compared to the urban walkers, plus a decline in tension, anxiety, anger, hostility, depression and fatigue. The benefits were immediate and effective. Trees also have an impact on our behaviour. Researchers have found that spending time around trees makes people more co-operative, kinder and more generous. It increases our sense of awe and wonder at the world, which in turn changes how we interact with others. It reduces aggression and incivility. Studies in Chicago, Baltimore and Vancouver have all discovered that neighbourhoods with higher tree cover have significantly fewer crimes, including assault, robbery and drug use – even when controlling for socioeconomic status and other confounding factors.

It’s almost as though being with trees makes us more human. We don’t know quite why this happens. Is it just that green environments are somehow more pleasant and calming? A study in Poland suggests that doesn’t explain it. They had people spend fifteen minutes standing in a wintertime urban forest: no leaves, no green, no shrubbery; just straight, bare trees. One might think such an environment would have minimal if any positive impact on people’s mood, but not so: participants standing in the bare forest reported significant improvements in their psychological and emotional states when compared to a control group that spent those fifteen minutes hanging out in an urban landscape. And it’s not just mood and behaviour. It turns out that trees have an impact on our physical health too – in concrete, material terms. Living near trees has been found to reduce cardiovascular risk. Walking in forests has been found to lower blood pressure, cortisol levels, pulse rates and other indicators of stress and anxiety.

Even more intriguingly, a team of scientists in China found that elderly patients with chronic health conditions demonstrated significant improvements in immune function after spending time in forests. We don’t know for sure, but this may have something to do with the chemical compounds that trees exhale into the air. The aromatic vapours released by cypress, for example, have been found to enhance the activity of a number of human immune cells, while reducing stress hormone levels. In an attempt to quantify the overall benefit of trees, scientists in Canada found that trees have a more powerful impact on our health and well-being than even large sums of money. Having just ten more trees on a city block decreases cardio-metabolic conditions in ways comparable to earning an extra $20,000. And it improves one’s sense of well-being as much as earning an extra $10,000, moving to a neighbourhood with $10,000 higher median income, or being seven years younger. These results are astonishing. There’s a real mystery here, which scientists still do not yet understand. But perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised. After all, we have co-evolved with trees for millions of years. We even share DNA with trees. After countless generations, we’ve come to depend on them for our health and happiness just as we depend on other humans. We are, in a very real sense, relatives.

- Jason Hickel,  Less is More

[oidheadh-con-culainn]

What are the major details that confused you about the Hound blurb? The major one that stood put to me was the "way of the farmer opposed to the sword" thing which felt very...un-Cú Chulainn. Also, if you don't mind expanding further, which details didn't you question/be confused by?

and also for anon:

okay so it is like. 2am so there are not going to be any sources here but i can't sleep so here goes!! i will go through this blurb line by line and give youse my thoughts

In 50 BCE,

reasonable. this is roughly the right time period for when the ulster cycle is set. maybe marginally earlier than i'd place cú chulainn, but i'm talking a few years, nothing to get worked up about.

Morrigan, the goddess of war,

fine. normally i'm wary of pantheonising impulses with regard to irish characters (almost none of them can be identified as a god of anything in particular, it doesn't work like that) but tbh the morrigan is like, the most plausible exception to that, so whatever. normally her name has the definite article attached to it because it's kind of a species term as well but whatevs.

has become restless as a long-lasting peace settles over Ireland.

dubious. closest i can think of to peace being reference in any texts is togail bruidne da derga talking about conaire mor's reign being like, prosperous and peaceful and whatever, and even there you've got díberg (plundering/reaving) which is what eventually fucks him over and starts the otherworldly hell spiral situation. that's roughly the right period here but conaire's doom proves you don't have to do much to nudge peace into war, and connacht and ulster are at each other's throats for years before cú chulainn comes on the scene anyway

Deciding the time of peace must end, she chooses Setanta, the nephew of the king of the north, to become her ward.

hmm. i mean. like, this isn't the WEIRDEST choice they could have made. it's still completely made-up, don't get me wrong -- cú chulainn has a lot of different foster parents in different texts and they don't agree with each other but none of them ever mentions the morrígan. but like, they do have a connection of some sort, as evidenced by their conversations. and there's that one moment in the r1 boyhood deeds where little cú chulainn is out on the battlefield and hears her (not sure which name is used here) calling out to him and it like. motivates him to do some deeds or whatever, and i guess you could extrapolate that into some kind of teaching capacity.

so like. could be weirder. if you're gonna pick anyone, you could do worse. still seems weird to me! but not on its own a major issue, i could get past this and consider it a Fun But Unorthodox Creative Decision

(the fact that she tries to seduce him in the táin probably wouldn't get in the way of this considering sleeping with his teachers/foster-mothers is far from unheard of where cú chulainn is concerned)

After a young Setanta slays the demon-hound of Cullan, he becomes known as Cú Cullan—The Hound of Cullan.

weird spelling choices, they could have at least bothered to use the genitive properly. also the hound isn't a demon, it's a ferocious watchdog -- making it sound all Otherworldly and Hellish like this kinda confuses the issue of why he would need to take its place. he needs to take its place because the cattle and people still need protecting because it is a watchdog!! but whatevs, again, it's a brief summary so they can't exactly give us all the details and this is not actively objectionable

As Cú Cullan grows older, it is apparent that an extraordinary power lies within him … and a great darkness.

ugh boring. this makes it sound like he's going to be ~tortured~ and angsty about it. give me an unapologetic murder teen please. is the ríastrad dark? sure i guess, if you're going to be boring about it. it's more like, grotesque neon in my head

When he chooses the quiet life of a farmer over the sword,

this would fucking never happen on like five different levels. obviously like anyone who has ever read anything about cú chulainn can see that this is not in his nature. he is never going to choose a quiet life. this is the kid who tricked his way into taking arms before everyone thought he was ready. also juxtaposed with the "darkness" comment makes it sound like he would Angst his way into this quiet life which. again. have you seen this kid. he is an unapologetic murder teen

the only thing i can think of that might make him temporarily want to walk away is connla's death which... depends where you position that in the timeline really, he does seem a bit fucked up by it and maybe he'd want a holiday although i can see that lasting precisely 5 minutes before someone pissed him off enough for him to murder them. but if he's being raised by the morrígan i can't see him going to train with scáthach so then he'd never meet aífe and therefore connla would never be born so that wouldn't happen. so like. whatever.

but also like. he would not become a farmer. he just wouldn't! it doesn't work! the ireland of the stories is super hierarchical, right? and this blurb has already fucking told us that he's the king's nephew (canon) so we can tell that being a farmer is Not His Place. when we see upper class figures becoming menial labourers in texts, like in cath maige tuired, it's because Things Are Fucked, Shit's Gone Wrong. people don't just decide to change their entire social class on a whim lmfao

if cú chulainn really wanted to turn his back on being a warrior he could probably make recourse to certain other Suitable Professions ... his grandad's a druid so he might have a route into that, though his dad's not so that might fuck things up a bit bc it's one of those things that's usually inherited. he does give "wisdom" in at least one text though and we also know he can write (he carves riddles in ogham in the táin) and he composes verses on various occasions so idk, maybe something in a poetic direction, though again, usually requires two generations of inheritance to be a real poet and not just a lower-class bard. warrior's kinda the main thing he's got open to him tbh. but farming? i'm not a legal expert but as far as i'm aware based on what i have read, that would fuck shit up

more likely an upset cú chulainn would just go off in search of an adventure somewhere conveniently far away until he'd calmed down (alba, or the tyrrhenian sea, or -- if we're going to get early modern about it -- somewhere like india, which frequently gets thrown into the texts with absolutely no cultural context and it's always hilarious)

Morrigan, angry at the betrayal,

of the entire social order, yes,

instigates an invasion of his homeland

i mean. if they intend this to be the táin then.... táin bó regamna does kinda make the morrígan responsible for it? not in the sense of triggering the pillow talk argument that it's in the book of leinster -- it's her getting up to her usual cow-nicking behaviours for shits and giggles. [note to readers: it is probably for more than shits and giggles but did i mention it's 2am]

but all in all, not particularly out of character that she would be at least some way responsible for this so i can vibe with this. echtra nerai also supports the TBR explanation with her fucking around with otherworldly cows and pissing people off so, yeah, whatever. the morrígan engineered this. sure.

and Cú Cullan must challenge fate itself

this is probably a controversial stance but fate feels like a difficult concept to apply to medieval irish texts. like are people sometimes Doomed? yes. there are prophecies, there are gessi, there's all manner of otherworldly fuckery that can trip you up. is that the same thing as fate? no idea. considering cú chulainn comes out alive from the táin though and his doom prophecies don't catch up to him for like, at least another decade, maybe 16 years depending on who you listen to, hard to see how that would apply here

to keep the goddess at bay.

again like she IS causing fuckery in the táin but also it's like... one time. really not the main character. but she or maybe just some crows, hard to say, do get implicated in the death tale so maybe they're doing what people often do and conflating the two? even though there's like 10-16 years in between them?

anyway as you can see i don’t think it’s wholly terrible / i’m not completely thinkshaming it. like, having cú chulainn raised by the morrígan is unorthodox but it could be a fun and creative direction so i don't object to it. making cú chulainn get sad about murder and choose to be a farmer is just fucking laughable tho, and makes me doubt their characterisations in general. so that's offputting and would probably make me think twice about buying it, if that had ever been on the cards.*

and of course sure, their cú chulainn can be a Sad Boy Who Likes Sheep, but that means he's not the cú chulainn of medieval irish lit / irish myth, because that cú chulainn is a feral murder teen who keeps killing his friends and also is way too high social status to ever be a farmer, and whose only relationship to livestock is as the watchdog who kills anyone trying to harm them (which is an important role on a farm! but like. not the same thing as Being A Farmer. mostly because it involves more murder and is essentially just an extension of his role as a warrior. or rather the other way around. he promises to protect mag muirthemne as a watchdog and this like. gets extended into him becoming its sole defender)

this has been my analysis of this blurb i hope you enjoyed it

it's now 2.30am i should try and sleep now that i've exorcised a few thoughts from my head

*as i mentioned in the tags of my other post, i don't tend to read graphic novels due to disability stuff. they're much harder for me to understand and follow than prose, to the point where some are incomprehensible, so i don't really enjoy them. there are a few i've read, but they tend to be short ones, and i'm usually not reading them in order, just admiring the art separately from the text. so it's unlikely i would read a graphic novel of this size anyway.

[serialreblogger]

“#ask-me-about-tree-societies” tell me about tree societies?

hello i love y’all so while i procrastinate on homework lemme answer a thing

SO

((Source disclaimer: For convenience’s sake, I’m gonna be sourcing most of my info from “The Hidden Life of Trees” by Peter Wohlleben unless otherwise linked. It’s a comprehensively researched, thoroughly sourced work, so by and large I’m inclined to agree with a lot of the theories it puts forward. That said, remember kids, all decent research has multiple sources to back it up! Everything you read comes from somewhere, so make sure the places you’re getting your information are credible ones with primary sources/field research to support them))

Fact 1: Beech trees that naturally grow near each other are almost always interdependent on one another for nutrients. (They aren’t the only ones that have been documented doing this, either.) This is so ingrained in their biology that felled trees (with no leaves, and therefore no chlorophyll to convert sunlight into nutrients) can live on for hundreds of years, because trees in their community give them the necessary sugars by interlinking their roots and transferring nutrients back and forth.

It’s not an accident, either; trees, like all plants, can differentiate their own roots from those of others around them. It’s a deliberate strategy on the part of trees: sharing nutrients to promote communal survival.

Arguably, this supports the argument that trees are, at the very least, capable of adopting social behaviours.

(Interestingly, tree farms of the same species don’t display these behaviours. Possibly the roots are too damaged by the planting process to initiate nutrient exchange, although trees tend to be quite effective at rebounding from nonlethal physical trauma. Another theory is that the artificially shortened lifespans and high death rate of farmed trees render such communal interdependence more harmful than advantageous. If anything, though, I’d hazard to say that this is a point in favour of trees as adaptive social creatures, which would make them more complex than, say, colony insects, which operate primarily instinctively and form communities roughly the same way, no matter what conditions a species is exposed to.)

Fact 2: Trees, and many other plants, do experience pain. You could, if you like, define pain in such a way as to exclude plants (or, with equal ease, non-human animals), but the fact remains that when the living tissue of a plant is damaged, it releases chemicals and sends out electrical signals indicating that damage has been done. The main difference is that for plants, pain signals travel more slowly. For a non-tree-related exploration of plant responses to threatening stimuli, check out the shrinking mimosa pudica:

The interesting point here, though, is that trees don’t just send pain signals internally. When some trees are damaged, they release scent compounds from their leaves as well as chemical signals sent through symbiotic fungal networks connecting trees by the roots, effectively communicating a distress signal (sometimes a very specific one; “help my roots are being eaten by fungus” is different from “help my leaves are being eaten by caterpillars”). Other trees in the vicinity are prompted to initiate their own defense responses. Given the slow nature of plant life (or, if you like, the needs associated with living in a world full of predators with super-speed), this is a hugely beneficial adaptation to have; such signals might not do anything to protect the individual tree, but they’re essential tactics for the preservation of the collective community of trees.

Fact 3: Albino redwoods.

Scraggly things, albino redwoods. They don’t possess the chlorophyll they’d need to survive, which is why you don’t see a lot of albino plants. And yet.

Most of the literature defines albino redwoods as parasitic, which imo is the height of ableist eugenic stupidity but I digress (INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF A SPECIES CAN’T BE PARASITES OF THEIR OWN SPECIES THAT’S NOT HOW THIS WORKS whatever! whatever). Albino redwoods, unlike other depigmented plants, survive by feeding on the nutrients shared with them by their parent trees. Like the long-felled beeches kept alive by their fellow trees’ root systems, albino redwoods are wholly dependent on the community around them for survival. And still, they survive.

What’s more, once scientists got done demonizing a literal tree for having a disability, they figured out something really interesting. Albino redwoods are most common in polluted areas. Know what albino redwoods also do? Stockpile heavy metals. They act as lightning rods for the harmful pollutants in the soil, storing up pollutants in their system and leaving a cleaner environment for the other trees to thrive in.

Again, there are a few possible reasons for this fascinating little coincidence (is albinism as a genetic mutation just more likely to be caused in redwoods upon exposure to pollutants? do redwood trees only support the survival of albino offspring during times of hardship, so that the community as a whole can thrive more easily in the decrease of heavy metal exposure? Would the latter qualify as a deliberate survival tactic, and if so, how the heck would a tree come to that conclusion?), but regardless of the cause, it’s yet another clear indication of the true nature of trees.

I’m not saying they’re intelligent beings. I’m saying they’re social ones.

[mostgeckcellent]

I'm here to ask about bibliotherapy!

First of all, I've literally never heard of it, so please feel free to tell me anything about it that you think would be helpful or cool for me to know!

Second of all... the fic writer in me obviously can't help but think about how it might relate to writing fanfiction. I'm not sure how to properly ask my question lol, but I guess I'd just be interested to hear any thoughts you have on a relationship there?

Becky!!! welcome to the Ren Isn't Working on Their Thesis Party!!!

So, I gave a brief overview (brief lol... brief in the context of my thesis is going to be very long indeed) of bibliotherapy in this ask, so I'm not gonna rehash All of it.

Instead, I'm gonna talk more about storytelling, because I think that's what's more relevant to the fic part of this ask. I'm also putting a readmore in now, because I've learned I can talk about this at length.

So, I'm gonna go ALLLLLL the way back into the fundamental theory for a second. Which means we're talking about Terence Deacon.

Human beings are the only species to use language. Now, language and communication are not the same thing. There are a lot of species that use relatively complicated methods of communication, with sounds that mean specific things. There are also species which have been taught to use human language (though there's a lot of debate there as to how much they're really using language, vs how much they've been taught to do a complex series of things in exchange for a reward). The fact is, using language isn't a matter of it just being too complex for other species to have evolved it - it just wasn't advantageous to those animals. Evolving language takes so much evolutionary energy - human infants are helpless for So Long, and so much hinges on their learning language. Here's the biggest difference, though, between how humans use language, and how animals can be taught to use language, whether they understand it fully or not: humans filter absolutely everything through language.

Here's where we get a little existential. Humans are a Language Species. Everything about ourselves is filtered through the lens of language; everything about how we perceive the world is through language. A gorilla can be taught that this word refers to food, or mother. To a human, that simple IS food, that simply IS mother. In that way, we require language in order to grow, as people. We have a lot of trouble conceiving of something we don't have language for.

What came first - humanity or language? Deacon argues you can't have one without the other. Language is fundamental to how we form the Self, and to how we connect to the world.

So, we need language. The way we use language is unique. I've been talking at you for like a hundred words now, when am I going to get to stories?

Well, now. Now is when I'm getting to stories.

Enter Joseph Gold. He says, okay, language is a fundamental, biological behaviour of human beings. Cool - let's take it a step further. It's not just language, it's stories specifically.

Stories are how we organize language. They provide lenses and frames for that language, and for the information contained within.

Now, in my last post I said I could talk about the difference between frames and lenses, but I wouldn't.

Guess what! I'm talking about it now instead. Imagine a picture. Whatever picture you want. Okay, now put it in a frame. It looks different, right? It might cut off something on the edges; it might flatten it better. A fancy frame might make you think about the picture differently than a frame made of popsicle sticks, or a dollar store frame. So, a frame, when we talk about literature, about stories, is the things in and around it that influence interpretation.

Take the frame off your picture, and imagine instead that you're holding a translucent sheet of coloured plastic in front of it instead. You can still see the original picture, but no part of it looks exactly the same; it's colouring directly what you're seeing. There we have the fundamental difference between a lens and a frame; a frame pushes you towards a certain interpretation. A lens changes directly what you see.

Everything has frames and lenses. Some of them are ones we arrive with; some of them are put there by others. Lenses tend to come from us; frames tend to come from other people.

Ren, I hear you say! This still isn't about stories!

I'm getting there.

Basically, every story has frames and lenses. Our lenses are informed by the things we've read before, the things we already believe, the things we've experienced. A hundred people could read the same book, hear the same story, and a hundred people will have taken something completely different and unique away from it, depending on what lens they're bringing to that experience.

And now I think you might see where I'm going with this when it comes to fanfiction!

A lot of research supports the idea that writing about your experiences can help process trauma, IF the person is in a place to be ready to do that. Forcing people to write about things before they want to won't work, just like forcing people to talk about things they're not ready for won't help. In my last post, I talked about how bibliotherapy is about getting you there. Reframing your trauma through a character can help you by proxy reframe it for yourself. It can make it easier to talk about.

Now, I'm not going to argue that writing fanfiction is a form of bibliotherapy. It's not. That doesn't mean it's not valuable! That doesn't mean you're not getting something out of it! It's just not actually a guided therapy, right?

But I think we can look at this theory and take a few things away from it regarding fanfiction.

1. everyone is going to interpret source material differently, they're going to connect to different things in it, and that's natural. We all bring our lenses.

2. writing fanfiction could very easily be a way of connecting with those narratives, and we will always bring something of ourselves into it, as writers. This is good!

3. given our tendency to connect to stories, given that stories are an inherent part of how we organize and take in information, fanfiction is such an intuitive way to grapple with the narrative presented to us via the fiction we consume

There's more, if I think about it. I'm sure it could be a thesis of its own! But those are the first things that come to mind, without really doing an in-depth analysis or taking a long time to think about it, I guess.

So, yeah! bibliotherapy, storytelling, fanfiction - I hope that answered your question! once again this is an absurdly long post.

[thecursedhellblazer]

romantic headcanons.

name: John Constantine alias: Hellblazer, ConJob, The Laughing Magician, The World’s Greatest Con Man, El Diablo, The Constant One gender: male sexual orientation: pansexual romantic orientation: demiromantic

preferred pet names: John pretty much plays along with whatever nickname his partner(s) decide to use for him, from “classic” ones to whatever thing the people he’s seeing might have come up with. This means that even insults can become pet names, when used by his current partner, no matter how bad they can get. relationship status: single / verse dependant (I currently have a verse in which he’s building a poly relationship, another in which he’s (un)officially dating but it might get more than official at some point, and one in which he has a proper stable boyfriend)

opinion on true love:  John believes that a kind of love that comes close to be defined as such exists. He has experience a similar feeling in person a few times (with Nick and Zatanna, with Kit). However, because of his past experiences, he isn’t very confident on the fact that he’ll ever manage to find a way to keep that sort of relationship going. The closer someone gets to him, the worse fate awaits ahead of them or the deeper he disappoints them. opinion on love at first sight: John believes in “attraction at first sight”, but not in love at first sight. That’s in part because getting attached is often not an option for him. When it comes to sex and romance, he prefers going for something casual, with few string attached. It’s it’s safer and less complicated, and it hurts less with things inevitably fall apart. So, he isn’t one to fall fast for people. He wouldn’t be able to even if he tried (with a few exceptions). how ‘romantic’ are they?: John can be a romantic, especially if it’s something that his partner(s) enjoy. Personally, he likes doing some traditional couple stuff, like going out for dinner, going to concerts, having a picnic or even just having an aimless stroll around holding hands. He likes trying to play the cook and cooking homemade meals...even if the results aren’t always stellar. So, when he really cares for someone (or he is in love) John is…a lot of things. He tries to be charming, confident, playful and appealing, and he wines and dines his partner(s) as much as they allow him to. However, he can also be a huge, sometimes sappy dork. He’d go to hell and back, literally too, to try and make his partner(s) happy (and that’s part of his idea of romance too).

ideal physical traits: John’s tastes when it comes to his partners’ physical appearances are, to say the least, variegated. Considering that he finds attractive beings from very different species, it’s hard to pinpoint what exactly draws him to someone, physically speaking. He has a certain preference for inhuman traits, especially if they could be somehow harmful for him (he finds the thrill of danger is too appealing for his sake). Another thing that he likes, in humans and non-humans alike, is physical strength. He likes someone who can crush him and hold him down, or who can put up a fight when he does that. ideal personality traits: John enjoys someone who can match his wits, who is cunning and can challenge him, keep him on his toes. He’s also attracted to people who can be too straightforward and who are strong-willed and determined, bold and not easily deterred, perhaps because those are all qualities someone needs to have to manage to stay around him for a prolonged amount of time. He’s also drawn to people who are fierce and passionate or have strong emotions, but can also keep an open mind. He can appreciate if his partner(s) have a kind, softer, perhaps even nurturing side, because, whether he wants to admit it or not, he tends to cling and find solace in such affections.

unattractive physical traits: Again, it’s just as hard to pinpoint what John might not like as it is to find specific physical traits that he found more attractive (I mean, at some point he had sex with a bunch of sentients organs, for the gods!). He’s open to give everyone and everything a try (as long as it’s consensual), though not all the experiences turn out to be pleasant. Those, he tends to avoid the second time. unattractive personality traits: Dullness, excessive ignorance or lack of smartness. Hypocrisy, because John might be a liar, but that kind of behaviour irks him to no end. People who are too pretentious, who have a too high idea of themselves without having a good reason to justify it. People who force themselves on others, in any way. Someone who’s too obsessive (because of bad past experiences) or too self-absorbed to spare the effort every relationship needs to work out.

do they have a type?: Yes and no. He has a preference for whoever checks most of the boxes when it comes to what he generally likes in a partner, but every case turns out to be different. It’s also true that most of his lovers, though, held some sort of power over him, be it because they are strong (physically or mentally or “magically) or because they for some reason have the upper hand in the relationship. Strong-willedness and ability to call him out on his bullshit are other recurrent traits. opinion of public affection: When he’s fond of someone, John can get very touchy-feely, if not straight out handsy, around them, no matter if they are alone or in public. He is very much open to PDA, but he restrains himself if his partner prefers avoid them. The same can’t be said for when they are in private, because then any excuse (and even the lack of one) is good to gets his hands on whoever he’s seeing.

favourite canon ship: Uuuh, I’m going to say Nick / John / Zatanna. We don’t see much of it in canon, aside from their tragic falling out, but I like to think that they had a good run before everything fell apart. John was obviously so very in love with them both, and the three of them balanced each other well and were a positive influence in each other’s life, even if at the same times they also tended to bring out the worst in each other. For all those reasons and more, I love the verse I’ve been building with @adventurepunks​​ because it allows me to explore all the shades of their complicated relationship. I liked, even if not as much, John’s relationship with Kit. Though, I must say that I’m glad (for her) that it didn’t work out, because that wonderful woman deserves so much better than him (just as Zatanna). favourite non-canon ship: I have three main non-canon relationships. John / Demon John (which I write in my verse with @thedemonconstantine ) and that’s a pairing I also ship in general (meaning outside RPs). Then we have John / Oliver Queen, with @thegreenxrcher​​​ (and with her too I have a whole verse). Last but not least, John / Nick Sethson ( Devil OC written by @paradiseturnedhell​​​). Each of this ships has its own peculiar appeal to me and I could write an essay for each of them, but I’ll spare you all x’D However, I want to make some special mentions too. I have build a wonderful friendships (with occasional benefits) with @obsessionsarenotforheroes​​​ and her Jessica. I’m developing a ship (or should I say shipS? xD How does it even work with Marc xD) with @fistofhnsw​​​. John & @laughter-in-white​​‘s croptop J because their friends-with-benefits relationship is hilarious. And, finally, John and Koriand’r ( @blizzardmuses​​​...‘cause they kissed twice “for science” so it counts...right???)

*

tagged by: @laughter-in-white & @paradiseturnedhell tagging: @thegreenxrcher (one of the demons?) @fistofhnsw @adventurepunks @blizzardmuses​ @elisethetraveller​ @goldentemplariumcrow​ @seekthedarknesswithin​ - & whoever wants to steal this !

[chordata-on-alterhumanity]

Alterhuman vs Trans: Why r they compared so often?

I'm about to use 'alterhuman' as a shorthand for otherkin and otherlinkers. I don't think plurality is ever compared to being LGBT+ ... ? And I'm not knowledgeable enough about other experiences that fall under the alterhuman umbrella to speak on them. I just don't want to write ''kin and 'link' all the time. If anyone else can speak on other alterhuman experiences and how they compare to being trans, I'd love to hear!

Also, I'm about to use 'transgender' as an umbrella term for every non-cis experience.

Having an alterhuman identity is sometimes compared to being transgender. It brings up a lot of controversy, i.e. the discourse about species dysphoria being compared to gender dysphoria. I'm not about to make arguments for why the comparisons are or aren't valid. Instead, I want to present a thought about why the comparison happens so much.

Being alterhuman is about your internal identity, not necessarily related to what you do or what you're surrounded by. Being trans is the same. Of course, our environment influences us, but they aren't identities that are dependent on your environment.

I’ll talk about other types of identities I can think of before I circle back around to my point.

Identity based on actions: Career titles

You might be an engineer and identify as an engineer, but I don't think most engineers identify as one as deeply as they identify as their gender. Why? I can imagine it's because that title depends on your actions. Is someone an engineer when they're not putting their knowledge to use? I can learn to be engineer and then become a painter and never touch my engineer know-how. I won't identify as an engineer unless I actually feel like one (which requires working as one, be it as a job or as a hobby), and in my own and society's eyes, you need to do a job in order to be labelled as a job-do-er (You gotta do engineering to be an engineer). This sounds very rambly, but the point I want to get to is: A career title can be taken away. You need to work as the thing to be a thing. Because of that, we tend to not identify as strongly with our jobs.

-> action-dependant, environment-dependant

Identity based on environment: Nationality

This one’s a tricky one. I hope I can illustrate my points well enough. The country where you grow up has an effect on you. It's what you're familiar with as a child, and it'll stay with you probably for your entire life. Lots of people hold pride for their country. It's usually something very inherent to a person, because of how deeply connected it is to one's upbringing. So why isn't being trans ever compared to national identity? It seems like a weird question at first, since you can't feel about your nationality like you can feel about your assigned gender (nationality dysphoria?), right? But actually some people do feel very uneasy with their nationality, and you can (if you have the means) move to a different country. I think the inability to compare the two might have something to do with how immigrants, no matter how hard they try to fit in, tend to be viewed as foreign in their new home. The bottom line, tho, is that we generally don't view nationality as something a person can change. And the experience of not vibing with your country is very different from not vibing with your assigned gender or human-ness.

-> not action-dependant, environment-dependant

Identity based on actions and environment: Relationships

Someone might identify as a family person. They put a lot of value on spending time with family. Someone might identify as an extrovert. They're outgoing and feel good spending lots of time with people. To an extent, these examples depend on action. The family person isn't really one when they never interact with their family. The extrovert isn't really one when they never talk to people. These identities depend both on actions and environment. Someone can't be a family person without a family who spends time with them. Someone can't be an extrovert if there's no people around. Would they still identify as that if they lack those things? It's not fully an identity that comes from within.

-> action- and not action-dependant, environment-dependant

Identity based on actions: Dietary choices based on personal ethics

I present myself as example. I'm vegan. I identify as vegan, sure. But of course nowhere near as deeply as I identify as genderqueer. Why? I guess because, if I start consuming animal products tomorrow, I'm no longer vegan. It's action dependant. I could say because of that it's not as inherent to me as my gender, but that's not quite true. I feel very strongly about being vegan, and pushing myself to be not-vegan would hurt me a lot, as would pushing against my natural gender expression do. But, even so, it's an action dependant thing. Gender, on the other hand, isn't. No matter how I dress or act, I remain genderqueer and prefer male pronouns, because gender isn't linked to any sort of action. The same goes for alterhumanity. My linktypes aren’t dependant on any actions like my veganism is.

-> action-dependant, not environment-dependent (unless in case of circumstances like illness or food shortage)

Let's go over gender and alterhumanity in a similar observation style.

Gender

You're your gender, no matter how you dress and act. Gender doesn't depend on your actions. It also doesn't matter how you're treated. It's nice to be recognized as your gender, but a lack of validation from other people doesn't make you not-your-gender. Gender identity may be influenced by our environment, but it's not dependent on it. Gender may be fluid over the course of some people’s life, but this fluidity can’t be forced (that would be conversion therapy). A person can’t force themselves to change either.

-> not action-dependant, not environment-dependant

Alterhuman

For some people being alterhuman changes over time, for some it doesn't. This change can’t be caused by force (neither by the person themselves or the environment) without hurting the person. Being alterhuman isn't related to any actions or the environment. An alterhuman identity might be influenced by both those things, but it's necessary. I'm sure there's some birds out there who identify as birds because they're pilots, and birds who identify as such because they have behaviours that they categorize as bird behaviours (I’m thinking, like, having a frequent urge to flap your arms like wings or ‘pecking’ stuff with your mouth), but there’s also plenty who don’t undertake any bird-like actions. You don't have to do anything to identify as a bird except identify as the bird. You're the only person you need to make comfortable about the identity. It doesn't matter if other people don't validate you - it won't make you not-a-bird spiritually/psychologically/metaphysically/etc.

-> not action-dependant, not environment-dependant

I feel like I rubbed my point to mush by writing so much for smth I can wrap up in just two sentences. Being alterhuman and being trans are very similar identity aspects to each other because you're the only person who can judge their validity. Neither your actions nor environment dictate who you are for both.