i know hun, i know

well i dont care ya still an idiot and ya still need to grow up who cares if there orignal species who cares if there hybrids she creaated them end of it snd true fact look at FA

about 80% of FA'S members have a mixed species for a fursona and yeah you did attack her right in the open ya just a jealous little brat who will never change and thats my opion of it dont like it well ya bad luck

i will say this again leave my freind alone or deal with me got it

and your a damn troll, get a damn life yah butt hurt troll

im not hating if you read carefuly you would of saw that i actualy like drel what i dont like is their inproper classification thats all

I don't get this...how was he being "jealous" for pointing out a scientific inaccuracy in accordance to proper semantics? The only thing "bratty" here is someone coming in and starting their comment with "well i dont care"; basically not giving his opinion so much as a chance.

if there is a god out there may he be praised for logic

it was fun to watch him get chewed out he was a thorn in my side

I don't really "chew out". I just point out when someone isn't being as fair as they think they are. Kudos for "protecting" his friend, minus those kudos and then some for not realizing it wasn't really a situation that required that level of "protecting". Also, they just didn't seem to be very nice about it. Regardless of how you feel about them or act toward them, it is your -point- that I am defending.

thank you i do enjoy having you on my side of things

and i have nothing against your friend she used to be my friend to

look this is finshed iv'e forgoten about it ya forget about it lets move on and get on with are lifes

one should of thought about that or fully read content before jumping to conclusions what happens on the internet stays

and also i hold grudges

just ignore link-collins morvik he don't wannna understand

very true very true indeed

Maybe you shouldn't believe everyone misreads or misinterprets your words. Maybe it's just you being a hater. your constant bitching whining and moaning that makes people always go and tell you their mind.

um obviously you are misreading my words im not hating any thing i just stated my opinion about its misclassification nothing more nothing less you took it as jeoulsy you took it as targeting divashi truth be told i like her

you know you remind me of an animal what was it called hmm lemmings yes thats correct blindly following the leader over the edge leading to their own undoing

That's hardly a civil thing to say Morvik...you're better than that.

you should read all of her comments on the other journal then you will see in comparison im civil

and also of all the things i thought of saying that was the least offensive

Just seems like a waste of energy to me. -shrugs-
Why bother typing something when it does not further your purpose. Unless your purpose was to hurt their feelings. That's not a purpose I'm ready to defend. Logic and analytic, sure.

and old saying says do un to others you wish tye do to you this perosn insulted me and harrased me i did the same not to their level

Another old saying is "Two wrongs don't make a right" (though three lefts will do the trick)
If you do unto others as you wish them to do unto you, you would be kinder despite hostilities. Indifference is the best insult to give an enemy.

trust me i tried the happy route it never works -_-

Also telling people not to say anything is gonna spark their human instincts to do it anyway. future tip before you decide to say don't.

try and be calm people. though once things get rolling anywhere like this, it's almost impossible to stop..

I understand what you meant, darlin'. Not everyone should be so quick to jump on your case. Especially if they had the know-how to just sit back and think about what was being said, rather than read what they thought was between the lines.

exactly im not hating the creator not the drel just the fact that they are being misclassified and being cutoff from every one else

I have no opinion of this matter.

I love this.

It's like writing "No comment" in a comment box; I loled way harder than I should have.

Glad I could help lol

Alright since things appear to have calmed down somewhat I would like to have a civil discussion. I kind of see where you're coming from but you're phrasing makes you sound kind of elitist. It appears as though you're saying something unique cannot be original unless it meets certain criteria. If any of this is wrong feel free to correct me, as I said I'm open to a civil discussion. I'm being perhaps slightly simplistic but you appear to be saying that something can only be an original species if it has a way it came to be, habitat(s), and culture. If I just have a unique creation (hybrid or not bearing in mind not having it with recognizable parts of real animals is rather difficult) that I want to expand upon I can't say, pallet swap it a bit and call it a new species. Here I would step aside just to ask why this wouldn't count. I'm honestly curious why you feel I couldn't call that a new original species, because it seems to me that is about all that's needed. Now onward, let's continue on that not counting as an original species. Alright let's fulfill your requirements as minimally as possible: "The Qrshket were created in the image of their god five years ago. They are still exploring, and learning about their world thus have not developed a culture nor do they prefer a habitat. This is also why they are so few in number." Would you now consider them a new original species? Why or why not? If so now, then why now and not before?

Again (and this is for everyone else who may read this too) I'm not posting this as an attack. I'm honestly curious in trying to understand your point of view better.

That brings up an interesting point. My question would be this:

Is there not a difference between "original" and "unique"? Or is this just boiling down to semantics of something more obtuse?

My view on this is similar to the Uncanny Valley effect. The closer a thing looks to what it is mimicking, the odder it gets, unless it hits complete perfect or complete imperfection (the difference between a photo and a cartoon.) In that, I think when people create an "original species" we inadvertently select traits we understand from things we know. For example, if it has webbed feet, we can guess that it swims. That doesn't make it a duck. The closer it resembles a duck, the less "unique" it seems. However, we know webbed feet come in many varieties, not just ducks. If you were to create a new species using the physiology of animals you understand, it should be based on the new species' environment. I wouldn't put webbed feet on something that didn't need to interact with its environment, that would make no sense. That's where I think the Uncanny Valley lies as far as "unique" species (physiology based and/or crossed between a species with no necessary consideration toward there use in the species natural habitat) and an "original" (physiology based and/or crossed between species for the purpose of interactions with their environment.)

To put simply; admittedly crossing known creatures into a hybrid does create a "unique" and "new" species. It exists where it has not before, and is therefor both new and unique. However the new species is not "original" as it is not a byproduct of adaptation toward a habitat; all of it's physiological attributes are derived from existing creates who -did- develop those attributes for -their- environment. Therefore, not "original".

some one is winning

Oh God, let it be me! I could use some winning...

yep its you

We both seem to agree on the point here being the difference between "original" and "unique".

I see where you're coming from, and you addressed at least a little of my first question, but you didn't touch and in fact seem to be saying no to my second. Why does original have to come from "adaptation to environment"? I'm gonna go a little far fetched here with this, please bear with me.

Let's say you have two people who both make the same species. One lays out how they came to be because of their environment, and what this says about the creature etc. The other says his species was created as they are because they were created with those traits their god found pleasing. Under a strict reading of your statement (Which atm I have to do as I can't try to fathom your intent behind what you're saying without knowing you) you would consider the first an original species, but the second is not. What I'm getting at is *why* (assuming my statements on your views is correct)? Imo both of these creatures are original species, and they are both likely unique (ignoring for the moment the "same species" bit. Simply used to narrow down the difference to just their "origin"). The second comes closest to what many created unique species starts out as, while others may be just the first, or become the first if the creator/originator decides to do so.

Finally, if I create a hybrid out of a group of animals and I then just make their environment mimic the "donor" animals in the correct ways, is *that* a new original species? If not why? It meets your apparent criteria of it's features being adaptations to it's environs. This becomes tricky when you involve mythological creatures (Why does a phoenix burn? Why do dragons breathe fire?) or when you mix strange environs (Desert and rain forest makes what now?) but the basic idea is there.

yes if you create the species and then create the enviroment from wich it came from that makes it an original species not doing so is basicaly throwing a bunch of creatures in a blend for the hell of it to see if it looks good and this enviorment barly scrapes the bottom now is said species is sappient you expand with a history a technology a culture ect. then it becoems in all truth original otherwise its unique

Evelon you raise many good points which I'll be answering with a reply in just a sec, but this is the root of where my questions come from. Morvik you seem to be saying that a species cannot be original unless it has a basis in it's environment with a rich culture/history/what have you, to go with it. Why? By this reasoning, neither the Zerg nor the Tyranids are original species. Neither were adapted for their environment, and in fact the Zerg were created with just the concept of making something that can't disobey orders. If you truly believe and can state you don't believe either are original species, then I shall concede I won't win you over, but I must still ask you to try and elaborate on why.

tyranoids zerg what

anywho my reason is because thats not original its minimal thought minimal creativity
the drel as i keep referring to are a blind mix of fox and fish no reason behind what it does where it came from just to look pretty
that job it does well but i look at it an i feel a mix of disapointment distaste and offended here you have something that with the right
person to do it can be more then eye candy i offered in the past long time ago to fix this i was shruged off
i thought nothing much of it until i saw it over and over again i and others who put work in to these details who are over looked simply because of lack of art or lack of money by something that is only eye candy its offensive its a unique hybrid i like hybrids i dont like hybrids being called a species
diffrence
species: classification of a group of organisms of particular traits to suit an enviorment
hybrid: a cross of diffrent species

Sorry but gotta stop you there. Species, in point of fact, doesn't appear to have anything to do with environment.


spe·cies   [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA noun, plural spe·cies, adjective
noun
1.
a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2.
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

hy·brid   [hahy-brid] Show IPA
noun
1.
the offspring of two animals or plants of different breeds, varieties, species, or genera, especially as produced through human manipulation for specific genetic characteristics.


I see nothing in there about species needing to have traits due to their environment, or a hybrid not being able to be a species. In fact botanists are near constantly working on new species of flora through genetic manipulation, often just looking for looks.



Both definitions copy pasted from Dictionary.com

that aside in the fandom this is diffrent

"Fallacies to not cease to be fallacies simply because they become fashion." Benjamin Franklin. The blue one is right, Movrik. However, I do point out that attributes in species are derived from the need of the attribute. No fox needs fins unless in needs to swim. The Drel, as far as unique species go, aren't the least-explained creatures I've ever seen. If someone made something similar and fleshed out more the the reasons for it's characteristics (why they glow, ect.) I'd be considerably more impressed. However, that is personal opinion and thus entirely subject. Not to mention neither here nor there. It qualifies as a species.

as or those mythological creatures examples could be a pheonix (it can be spelt that way i have seen it before) burns in order to rejuvinate its life and also as a self deffense mechanism to scare away scavengers for dragons its proven that burnt meat is easier to digest and gives more energy wich can be used for the brain there for it would make the dragon smarter also it can be used for mating like a bird of paradise does a dance and song to impress a mate a dragon could blow fire to prove they are the best choice in a mate also could be used in courtship battles

i um dable in cryptozoology

I think I understand your point. If someone came up to me and gave me reasons beyond "My creator made me this way" as to why any mammalian creature would be crossed with something aquatic, I would concede to this. A species whose attributes and physiology are put together with the care of a creator of a species and it's survival, not just how it looks or what it can do for the creator's will. Different species can be put together in many different ways, so your scenario is puzzling to me. It is HOW we put together our creations that is most important; the intent behind it. Crossing a fox with a fish in interesting, yes, but made doubly so when reason is behind it beyond "it looks pleasing". But the two can be put together in many different ways for many different reasons, or no reason at all. I suppose it makes me seem bias to reject that which was created in faith over that which was thought and planned.

My question to you is this. In your scenario, say the two realize they have identical species. As unlikely as the situation is already, let's say both created their creatures at the same time, and now demand one be struck down as the "copycat". One has full explanations for their creature looking and behaving as they do. The other does not, behind "that's how they made it." You can only pick one. Pick.

To the last question; I would say yes. If it is admitted that "This is a cross between a blah-blah-blah" then no; the attributes are genetic and not tailored toward the needs of the species in accordance to survival. Then again, there is a margin for suspension of disbelief. If some species began to cross environments and cross-breed, I could submit. Similarly, fantastical animals require a bit of faith to believe. I would not classify them as original, as their initial constructs are based on humanistic world-views and cultural lore. (Also, magic. Wouldn't like throw this science-ey shit right out the window) =3

Further thought!

I suppose if a few species were crossed to tailor a new species for a new environment, I would call it "original". It would be put together to suit a purpose, not to be strictly aesthetically pleasing. Of course, one could argue that the many breeds of dogs are hardly created for the longevity of their species as a whole. So, in that regard, I can understand the mixing of species for looks.

diffrnece between breeds and species a breed isa variation of a species all dog breeds still have the same base genome

Yes-yes, I am aware. However, in the topic of genetics, it cannot be denied that the less "necessary" traits do pop up. Just not to the extremes of dog breed differences. No Chihuahua anywhere is taking down elk, though their design is of an ancestry that can. Even in their diversity, their attributes are there for a reason. Teeth, claws, tails, even the direction of their eyes. So I can believe it when some of the more extreme creations pop up in front of me, so long as there is something there to connect what I'm seeing to the reason I'm even seeing it to make me believe this creature is real. I know WHY dogs have forward facing eyes, I know WHY the phoenix must re-create itself, but I need to know WHY a "unique" species has the attributes it does before I can call it "original". Anyone can cross species in a unique way, but few can do it in an original way. I could put fins on something to make it look cool, or to make it swim. A fox-fish because it looks cool is "unique", but one that is as it is for various reasons is "original".

my point exactly

To your question: I honestly don't know. I would leave it to them to decide, or perhaps a reasonable compromise would be the history etc. are what happened to them after creation. They then both hold claim to the look, but one holds claim to that particular back story and history. I created it more as a mental exercise to eliminate variables other than what I was looking at, that being the reasons behind their creation.

This I think is the crux of our issue. I see no reason why I can't put something together saying it I made it to be aesthetically pleasing, and claim it as an original species if none exist like it already. We have plenty of what I consider original species in literature put together this way, by a higher power grown arrogant. That is my only point/question. Why would you not consider this species an original (unique) species? What stops it from being original in this situation? Because it isn't a product of it's environment influencing what it needs? That just feels arrogant/elitist to me. My opinion, but there it is. I'm trying to understand your side of it because of my innate curiosity, not debate the point, discuss the point and see if we can reach an understanding.

To the question: In this impossible scenario, friend, you have to pick. You have to, no one else. Compromise can be made, but who has to give up what? You can't please everyone, and in trying can often please no one.

I have to say, my friend, your calm has convinced me to think a little more on your side. I understand your viewpoint, I do. I suppose my desire for more leaves me with unpaid expectations. If something is a way, instead of another, I wish to know why. The more believable the why, the more I can be convinced of "originality". Why put wings on this, why give gills to that; if something is a successful species it must live long enough to reproduce. In this, I feel same way about your side as you do mine. It feels arrogant to call something an original species because its unique physiology was simply decided by the will of a creator, with no thought toward the species itself as a functioning organism. With or without the creator, the thing must function. If two people made the same creature at the same time, and only one could be chosen, I feel the need to think of it on a grand scale. If you're going to call something an "original species" and even give it a name, one can expect others to follow. The creator who gave their species more meaning in their physiology beyond the sake of their own will can expect rather close interpretations of their design, with little change to it (Ie; Nightfury and such followings.) The creator that did not put more meaning beyond that they "willed" it so will find some more drastic changes being made without the boundaries. These people making similar creatures will change them in ways that, by your logic, would also count as new original species. Imagine someone making a single change to the creature and deigning it a new original species of its own. Is this permissible?

I suppose my question really is; without the constraints of reasons behind design, where does one draw the line between two creators proclaiming their species to be "original" and there is very little difference between the two (because without reason, there isn't a -need- to be.) If someone took someone's species and changed one thing, what is stopping them from calling it their "original" species?

"A good compromise leaves both parties angry" -Calvin from "Calvin and Hobbes" paraphrased slightly I think, but the point is still there. In this situation I feel my above compromise is perfectly valid. The one who feels no need to go beyond "This is how their creator willed them to be, and so it was" still has right to their OC's of that species, as well as being able to create more, and continue their story if they so choose, albeit they may not follow the same development as the one who felt the need to create such a detailed background, and origin for their species. The one who did feel the need to go "Going after their favorite food, fish, eventually had them developing fins in advantageous places to help them catch them underwater, as well as gills to hunt for longer" retains right to his OC's of the species, the ability to make more as well as his history and background being ineligible to be used The Other, without permission from him.

Your second question becomes more an issue of how well the species was created/annotated (You can have a species with lots of specifics about how they have to look regardless of environmental evolution back story to the look) and what the artist feels comfortable with. Personally I'm a rather lenient guy, and so long as it was a rather major feature change (like muzzle/face shape, or digitigrade to plantigrade) I would be pretty ok with allowing them to call it their own original species. Only time an issue might come up there is if they tried to pull something back on me trying to claim mine was based on theirs or something like that. It might prompt me to care a bit more, but more than likely time stamps and other people would support it not being true.

Understanding my viewpoint is all I was really looking for as hopefully it helps you be a bit more at ease with things in the future, and I'm happy to say you did help me understand your own point of view a bit better as well. I'm sorry to see Morvik falling back on the "Our rules are different" argument above but that can't be helped.

Unless you have more to say, I'll wish you both a good evening, and good luck.

its the minute detials that make a species a hybrid is a cross of species major major diffrence with out minute details you have no purpose to even create the design the most important factor in characters cultures species ect. would be the minute details soemthing that i pride myself on and aswell as the most famous species creator mick the owner of the greatest original species on FA the sergal

You present yourself very well, and have remained very calm. I like that.

I can't even see why anyone is still arguing with you in any rude manner. It's clear you aren't angry or hate this, just wanting to point out a flaw. If a new species is admittedly a hybrid of a few creatures, it's most certainly not original. Now if it's admittedly modeled after several known species, but for the purpose of it's survival as a species through outside interactions and adaptations, then it's original.

exactly and the drel do not have any of the details for that survival

If I wanted to cross those species together, I can make it "unique", but if I want to make it "original" I'd have to cross them for the purpose of interacting with the environment, not to look a certain way, though that can be worked in. I don't see why people aren't getting your point. It looks like they're all just...kinda mad in ignorance.

that and they blindly follow the more popular fur this isnt the firsttime i spoke my opinion wich conflicted with another fur and everyone that kisses their ass attacked me

I don't get it. It's a nice species; very pleasing to the eyes, but it's clear it's features are chosen just for that reason, and not out of adaptation for necessities. That's not a bad or good thing, but it IS a thing. It's okay to make a "unique" species through hybridization of traits in existing species strictly to make the new species aesthetically pleasing. The majority of "unique" species anywhere are like that. It just creates confusing calling it "original" when none of the traits were chosen with consideration to only functionality for the species. Crpssing a fox with a water-dragon is beautiful, and certainly "unique" when done right, but I can't accept having it called "original" when there is no purpose to the fins or the fur in the creature's life...

well this should be a kicker after talking to many old friends of hers that she stabed in the back she ripped off many parts of her design including the name from other creature creators and ends up claiming she came up with it first then claims the others are copying her

I don't know about all that. Sounds like idle gossip; those she may or may not have wrongs are more in-the-know than I, and I'd just as soon leave it to them to make their own peace. I don't know her, I do like her art from what I've seen, clearly capable. My only "quirked brow" is on the odd classification. I love when artists blatantly cross species to make them look nice, particularly when artists like her do because they do it very well. I can suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy their artwork, quieting that logical part of my mind screaming "How the fuck do you cross mammalian with reptilian and aquatic; and to what end or for what purpose? What environment developed these?!" long enough enjoy the fanciful side of my mind saying "That's one handsome creature right there".

once was the same but my mind that demands details spoke up