A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Gargoyle Biology

Archive Index


: « First : « 25 : Displaying #221 - #245 of 263 records. : 25 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

Artemis writes...

This isn't really a question, but rather a corrective comment.

Obviously Goliath wouldn't know, but I don't know about you, but Thailog is NOT Goliath's son. They are brothers. Until I went to a genetics seminar with my AP bio class, this would never have crossed my mind.

Anyway, to the point. The reason Thailog can't be Goliath's son is because of genetics. Thailog's genes came from Goliath, which in turn came from Goliaths parents. Now, therefore, technically Thailog has the same parents as Goliath (since all his chormosomes can be traced back through Goliath's parents).

There's more to it that, but I wanted to keep it it terms understandable. Another simpler way to make the argument is that since Thatilog has the same genes as Goliath, they're sort of like identical twins, born years apart (and of course identical twins are siblings of each other). It's the same with the labrynth clones as well, they are bothers of the gargs they were cloned from.

Delilah is a whole different story. I can't explain that one, but i guess she's a half sister to both Elisa and Demona, but I can't prove it genetically.

Sorry if I seemed to have a "you're wrong, I'm right" attitude, but I just wanted to let you know what the real world truth was. Now Gargoyles Universe truth, well, I can't tell you what's right and wrong, that's for you to decide.

Thanx for listening to my lecture :)

Greg responds...

Actually, I found this post very interesting and informative. It doesn't change the emotional reality of how Thailog and Goliath feel about each other. But it's good to know. And I appreciate -- greatly -- that you weren't trying to make me look foolish, just filling me in on an obvious gap in my knowledge.

It's over a year since you posted this, so I don't have any idea if you're still hanging around. But Thank You, Artemis. It is appreciated.

Response recorded on June 05, 2003

Bookmark Link

F7 Addict writes...

This one is purely out of personal curiousity.

Given the fact that Gargoyles are warm blooded, have mammatory glands (for those who fell asleep in Anatomy, look at Demona and Angela to figure out what the m glands are), and lay eggs, it's safe to assume that genetically they are closer to the infamous duck-billed platypus than humans. (another argument against the Goliath/Elisa issue)

Was this done on purpose or am I reading too much into it?

Greg responds...

I think "those who fell asleep in Anatomy" would have better luck looking up "mammary glands" than "mammatory glands."

I'm not sure what you're reading into it. What was done on purpose was the idea that Gargoyles are a separate species. Not specifically platypusian. Gargates, I think we've been calling them.

Response recorded on May 30, 2003

Bookmark Link

Tukins writes...

Hey Greg
I'm not gonna bother you long, I only got one question

I was just wondering, since gargoyles see upon the entire clan as their family, and they concider them all brothers and sisters, how do they prevent interbreeding? I mean, they don't know just how closely they are related to eich other, doesn't that lead to problems sometimes?

That question has been bothering me for a while now, hope you can answer it for me

Greg responds...

It's been bugging you, but you chose not to check the archives for the answer. Instead you posted a question that I didn't get to for a year and a half.

Couldn't have been bugging you too much.

Within a generation, you're not going to get anyone mating with their biological brothers or sisters, because they don't have any among their rookery siblings. First Cousins are a possibility, I suppose. I have posited in the past that smell creates a natural anti-disposition for a gargoyle choosing a mate that he or she is too closely related to.

Response recorded on May 16, 2003

Bookmark Link

Adam Carlson writes...

how many eggs can a gargoyle female lay at one time? during there life time?
And, if there are 36 eggs taken to Avalon, how many gargoyles lived at Castle Wyvern before the massacure.

Greg responds...

1. One. Two on EXTREMELY rare occasions, maybe. Maybe.
2. Three or four tops.
3. I've answered this before, and I don't remember what I said exactly. About forty. But nearly half the clan migrated to form a new clan sometime before the massacre. So there are more eggs than you'd expect from the small numbers that were massacred.

Response recorded on April 22, 2003

Bookmark Link

Dragon7 writes...

Dear Mr. Weisman I find your posts on gargoyle physiology and culture very fascinating. Having recently read some of your earlier answers to the newly identified Loch Ness Clan a question came to my mind as to how this clan raised and cared for its offspring. It is widely known that gargoyles in the other clans in the gargoyles universe lay eggs is this also true of the Lochness Clan and if so do they put their eggs into caves until hatching as the Wyvern Clan did in generations past?

Greg responds...

Yep.

Response recorded on April 15, 2003

Bookmark Link

Vashkoda writes...

I've never bother to question any of the following, and I still pretty much accept it as "just the way things are", but I figured I'd still ask about it just in case it led to any interesting revelations:

1) Why *do* gargoyles assume threatening poses while they sleep? You've mentioned that gargoyles have a similarity to scarecrows. Also, one explanation for building gargoyles on medieval churches was to scare away demons. But what's the "Gargoyles-Universe" explanation? Is it really that effective in scaring away predators (and what kind of animal would attack something made of stone, anyways?). Even scarecrows lose their effectiveness over time, once birds get used to them.

2) In Japan, where the clan said that they face inward as a sign of trust to the humans, they still strike frightening poses. Is this "pose-behavior" therefore something instinctual?

3) Similarly, why did the trio, Hudson and Bronx assume threatening poses as the Magus's sleep spell took place? I'm not sure the gargoyles even understood what was happening, or identified the Magus as a threat (Lex says, "What's he talking about?" and Hudson asks, "What's all this?" just before the spell). As they see the magic swirling around them, I think they get suspicious, but it still seems odd for them to assume attack poses at that moment (I would have expected them to be confused or afraid, but not violent, especially if they haven't had time to understand what's going on). I was wondering whether the fact that they were becoming stone had triggered their instinctual pose-behavior, or were they indeed getting ready to attack the Magus?

Greg responds...

1. Partially, it's just tradition. Keep potential enemies away. A reminder to any potential attacker of what they might face.

2. Possibly. You're in a state of relative vulnerability. The pose might lend some sense-of peace-of-mind.

3. That's possible too, although I always assumed that they were on the verge of leaping into action at the attack when they got caught in it.

Response recorded on April 11, 2003

Bookmark Link

The Endless writes...

1) Are the Gargoyles and the Garg-Dogs (prolly not correct, please don't yell!) related evolutionarily to humans, animals, plants, and cells as are all other known denizens of the biological kingdoms? i.e. Did Gargoyles and Garg-Dogs emerge from the same kind of ancestral single-celled organisms that every other animal comes from and if so, what are the closest evolutionary relatives to the Gargoyles besides the Garg-Dogs?

2) Does a Gargoyle in stone form weigh as much as he does in flesh form?

3) Why is the humanoid form (arms, upright walking, opposible thumbs) most prevalent in the known sentient races? (Fae, Gargoyle, Human)

4) Are Gargoyles photosynthetic organisms? If not, how much food do they need to eat and do they actually produce some type of feces or is stone skin their waste product?

Greg responds...

1. Yes, but I'm not going to answer your question specifically.

2. It seems like it must, but I don't know.

3. I don't know this either.

4. Everytime I even try to answer these types of questions, I wind up digging a deeper hole for myself. Tonight, I'm shovel-free, so I'll demure.

Response recorded on July 22, 2002

Bookmark Link

Galvatron writes...

2.Are there any viruses and bacteria within gargoylesthat can survive stone sleep? If not why? If nature can develop such a defense system as the stone sleep surely nature can develop something that can allow viruses and bacteria to survive (if theres a niche in nature waiting to be filled then it will be filled) unless gargoyles are fundamentally different from humans and other animals on this planet?

Greg responds...

Galvatron,

Again, I kinda feel like you're TRYING to stump me. To make me or the show look foolish.

If that's the goal, congratulations.

If not, I'm not sure how to help you feel comfortable. I've said time and time again that I'm not a scientist. I don't have all the answers. You seem much more well-versed in this then I am. So figure it out to your own satisfaction based on the evidence in the aired episodes.

Response recorded on June 10, 2002

Bookmark Link

Galvatron writes...

Gargoyle diseases
1.Do gargoyles get cancer? If so can they die from it?

Greg responds...

1. Tend to think not, but I'm not ruling it out.

Response recorded on June 10, 2002

Bookmark Link

Galvatron writes...

Stone Sleep
1. Do Gargoyles cells engage in mitosis/reproduction during stone sleep?
2.How can they be in suspended animation during stone sleep when many biological functions are still active? It doesn't make sense.

Greg responds...

1. I don't know what that means, so I cannot answer.
2. Makes sense to me. But I'm no scientist. How about you come up with an answer?

Response recorded on June 10, 2002

Bookmark Link

Vanity writes...

I have a question. Relating to biology.

In the animal kingdom, animals(let's use chimps), chimps show a ratio in the wild and in captivity to be 50% right handed and 50% left handed. In the human population as a total about 75% are right handed and 25% Left handed. Some human societies vary of course some being 95% to 5% right to left up to 70% and 30% right to left. I couldn't find this in the archives so, do gargoyles have handedness, and if so of the gargoyle population are they like chimps with a 50/50 Right to left handers or more like humans with a heavy slant to Right handers?

Greg responds...

Some facts about animation "handedness..."

It's very hard to keep track of.

Storyboard artists like to have the freedom to allow characters to freely use either hand, depending on how they want to stage a scene.

To some degree, particularly in an action show, this might make sense. I.e. the heroes and villains all TRAIN themselves to be at least semi-ambidextrous, because their lives may depend on it.

So although I have no idea what handed our various human characters are, I'm going to say that Gargoyles are ambidextrous. Because visually, the series seems to confirm that fact.

Response recorded on April 16, 2002

Bookmark Link

While I'm thinking of it....

Behold the following exchange (then skip to the bottom):

Received from pc-17.di.uoa.gr on Monday, September 17, 2001 04:52:03 AM
Aris Katsaris writes...

'kay, you were in your Disney office and couldn't answer this the last time I asked it, so you told me to repost it... Here goes:

<g> Another timeline thingy - this time less of a question though and more of a possible correction (unless I'm missing something)...

You recently said that Tom, Katherine and Magus entered Avalon on September 28th 995. But we also know that the eggs would normally hatch on the spring equinox (about March 21st) of 998. This means that there normally remained 2 and 1/2 years for the eggs to hatch... This time they spent on Avalon.

You can probably see where I'm going... Multiply by 24, and we see that they had to spent 60 years (Earth time) on Avalon. This takes them all the way to 995+60 = 1055.

Obviously the closest "20-year circle of the earth" was 1058... Quite near by. So why did you have them hatch on 1078, 20 years later, instead?

I don't think I've made any errors with the math... :-)

Greg responds...

The eggs were laid in 988. From 988 until 995 (seven out of the normal ten years for gestation) time passed normally. That means they needed @three more years to hatch once they arrived on Avalon. One year on Avalon equals 24 in the real world, as you noted. 3 x 24 = 72. 995 + 72 puts us at 1067. Making the closest twenty year cycle at 1078, as I noted.

You're calculations assume two and a half years instead of three to hatch. And that makes sense given the dates listed. The obvious dopey answer is that I was not calculating to the month but to the year. And so I could acknowledge the mistake and redo everything. And maybe on my next pass through the timeline, I'll do just that.

But to be honest, maybe I won't. When dealing with Avalon's mysterious flow of time, I believe my calculations are close enough. If the eggs weren't ready until March of 1059 even, then I'm still correct -- so it's not quite as big an error as it appears at first glance. Four years passing in the real world represents only two months on Avalon. Perhaps all that traveling and magic, etc. set the eggs back just a bit. If it set them back two months, then I'm right, and they're just slightly late bloomers.

And yes, I'm making excuses. So I'll save this exchange and decide at a later date.

For now, I'm sticking with my current calculations.

recorded on 03-04-02

With all this in mind...

I know I've established -- both here and in my own head (particularly with regards to G2198) that eggs hatch on the Spring Equinox.

But does anyone remember whether (and where) I've established what month the eggs are laid in?

I can't recall if this has come up yet.

Anyone know? And would this solve my problems at all?


Bookmark Link

Creamy writes...

Yeah I knowm, stupid questions but...

1)When Gargoyles hatch are they infant or toodlers?
2)When first hatched can they crawl right off?
3)At about what time(month)of the year do they hatch?
4)You said that gargoyles nurse. So do the females take turns nursing all the hatchlings or just one?
5)For how long?
6)What age do gargyles usually learn to glide?
7)What did gargoyles do with hatchlings that were deformed or were found to have a mental retardation later on in life?

Greg responds...

1. Right when they hatch? Closer to infants.

2. No.

3. Generally, around Spring Solstice.

4. It's communal.

5. I'm not sure.

6. I'm not sure of this either. Something I wanted to explore in the future.

7. The clan takes care of its own.

Response recorded on January 15, 2002

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

if a female gargoyle not living or having ever had lived on Avalon happened to have 4 biological children, would you say it was more likely that she either had twins born from one egg, or was able to lay an egg for an extra season as her female rookery siblings? in short, whats more likely, 4 eggs or 3 with one egg being twins?

Greg responds...

Neither, really. Though I guess the twin scenario, barely.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

Jacob writes...

Like you, I'm not a biologist, but this thing about a garg's wings bug me. You said that there are bones inside the wings, though you were not sure. But if there are some, then they can't be like the ones inside the arms or legs. Just watch one episode and you should notice what I mean. To fold them over the shoulders with only two large bones, they must be made of rubber, but that seems pretty unlikely. I would say that either instead of two large bones there are many vertebras, or instead of bones something else like cartilage.

I hope you understand what I mean.

What do your thoughts about it?

Greg responds...

I have bones in my arm and it still bends at the elbow.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

can a female gargoyle born, raised and living her life on Avalon generally have more than three eggs in her lifetime if she wanted to?

Greg responds...

Potentially, I think.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

The Cat writes...

Hi Greg,

Last one from me, for awhile anyway.
Ok, these are about disabilities. I'm disabled and I was wondering about this because it seemed to me that the only gargoyles that had anything wrong with them (such as blindness or missing a limb) aquired it in battle.

1. Are any gargoyls born with problems that cause a disability?(Like, I have heart problems and they caused me to have a stroke when I was 4 years old which caused the right side of my body not to work properly.)
2. Are any gargoyles born blind, mute, deaf or missing any limbs?
3. If yes, what does the rest of the clan do with them?
4. If no, why not?

Ok, I'm being chased off the computer. I better run. Bye.

Greg responds...

1. I don't know. I won't rule it out, but I have their healing factor to figure in. It's also possible that some eggs just don't hatch. But I'd have to think and do more research.

2. Same answer. I'm not sure at this point.

3. The clan takes care of its own in any case.

4. The answer, if the answer is no, would have something to do with the healing factor which begins to work even in the egg. But again, I haven't considered this yet, honestly.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

Gipdac writes...

Can gargoyles make their eyes glow or is it an involuntary action?

Greg responds...

I believe it's involuntary.

Response recorded on November 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

ok, another kinda silly question:

is Leo's mane kinda just a beard that most other male gargoyles can grow? could Leo shave it off if he wanted too?
could Goliath or another male garg grow a "mane"? or is that mane not like a beard and strictly genetically connected with the English gargs?

Greg responds...

Well, of course, Leo could shave it off. He could theoretically use Nair too.

I doubt Goliath could grow a mane, however.

Response recorded on November 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

Vashkoda writes...

Hey Greg. I haven't asked you any biology questions in a long time. I know that this topic has a tendency to irk you a little, so I limit myself to one subject: the gargoyles' stone-like skin.

1a) Is this substance more porous (like lava rock) than most kinds of stone (like granite)? I ask because you've said that a gargoyle's weight doesn't change when they transform, yet stone tends to be denser and far heavier than, say, a similar-sized piece of flesh or bone.

1b) If it is more porous, does that mean that it is easier to break apart than most kinds of stone? Would it have a greater tendency to crumble than to break into clean fragments?

2a) Would you say that this stone-like subtance is "alive", in the sense that biological processes are going on inside of it?

2b) If so, then would there be any changes in the substance's cohesion or other properties when a gargoyle dies in their sleep? i.e., does it become easier to break, or more solid? If Goliath and the others were only able to stay in such good shape over the centuries (no erosion by moss or ivy) because they were still "alive", I'm surprised that there were fragments of the Coldtrio preserved well enough to be used by Xanatos and Demona.

3a) Is it the "light energy" (for photosynthesis) or the "heat energy" of sunlight that gets stored and used by the gargoyles?

3b) Where would this energy be stored? Throughout their body, or only in their outer layer of skin where it is captured?

3c) Must it be solar energy, or could they also harvest artifical forms of light?

3d) Can they only capture this energy when they transform into the stone-like substance? (i.e., are the mechanisms needed to capture the energy only present when they are 'stone'?). Can the Mayan gargoyles, for example, still absorb any energy from sunlight when they are awake?

Thanks Greg. I hope this wasn't too painful for you (no more biology questions from me for at least several months, I promise).

Greg responds...

1a. I don't know.

1b. What does your observation tell you?

2a. To some limited extent, yes.

2b. Fragments is the key word.

3a. I'm guessing THERMAL energy. Just a guess.

3b. I don't know.

3c. I'm thinking heat, but I don't know.

3d. They need to be stone, but the pendants may compensate to some extent.

It was relatively painless, Vash, thanks.

Response recorded on October 10, 2001

Bookmark Link

Mooncat writes...

If Gargoyles are biologically inclined to take a monogamous mate (as well as traditionally) why is it so easy for Thailog to discard Demona?

Can a gargoyle have physical relations with more than one other gargoyle before the "imprint" sets in? Or does the "imprint" set in during the first full physical relationship?

Greg responds...

Opportunistic programming allows Thailog to override certain impulses.

Generally, the latter.

Response recorded on October 10, 2001

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Care to explain why the gargoyles in the British isles are so different since in London we have animal headed ways, in Loch Ness aquatic gargoyles and in wyvern the generic ishimura/guatemala kind?

Greg responds...

'Generic ishimura/guatemala kind', huh? Don't agree with that.

But no, I don't currently care to explain it.

Response recorded on September 11, 2001

Bookmark Link

icemann writes...

Don`t think this ones been asked be for

Is there any way that technology in the future (2158 and beyond) could bypass the Gargoyles turning to stone? Cause if magic can do it, I can`t see why technology couldn`t replicate the same effect in some way.

Greg responds...

Not by 2198, or 2199 for that matter.

Response recorded on September 09, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

both Proto-Mammals and Dinosaurs evolved from Reptiles. Proto-Mammals were very reptilian, but with some very Mammalian characteristics. they laid eggs, but probably nursed their young sometimes too. they lived at the beginning of the age of dinosaurs and most are considered "dinosaurs' in a very broad way, though scientifically they are not. Proto-Mammals would go on to evolve into mammals and what i'm wondering is if they also went to evolve into Gargates. from everything i know and you've told us, they fit the profile. some, like Dimetrodon, even had primative solar radiaters which could have evolved into the ability to store solar energy. in fact, Dimetrodon looks very similar to a garg beast to me, with a sail. i once asked you if gargs were related to Platypus cause of the varied similarities they have, and if Gargates did evolve from Proto-mammals than they were related since platypus is one of the few remaining Proto-Mammals not extinct. are proto-mammals the ancestors of gargates?

Greg responds...

matt, how many ways can I say I DON'T KNOW enough about biology to answer this question?

You're theory (assuming the facts are accurate) is interesting. So... MAYBE!

Before I say yes, I'd have to do a lot of research that I haven't yet done.

Response recorded on September 08, 2001

Bookmark Link

GLITCH

okay something very weird just happened. I was answering a question that Matt posted about the 'chameleon gene'. Then suddenly, the question just changed. My answer (which I was in the process of writing) remained , but there was now a new question listed above it.....

Hmmmm.... Okay, I think Gore just re-activated the question answering function while I was typing and we had a little glitch here. Matt's question was lost. I'll try to recreate it a bit...

1. Matt wrote something like, "I know you're not a biologist, but how does this chameleon gene' work."
2. Matt thought gargoyles were the sources of various legends, but does the chameleon gene cause gargoyles to look like legendary characters.
3. He asked whether the gene would start changing the looks of familiar clans over time. Or something like that.
4. He stated that he had his own theories as to heredity, etc. And he challenged me to 'sell' him on my chameleon gene theory.
5. He had at least a fifth part to the question (maybe more) but I didn't even get the chance to read it.

My answers to his original question; not to the paraphrased versions above. (Man, this is a mess.)

1. I have no idea. It was just a random thought.

2. No. Definitely not. You're first thought was correct.

3. Natural Mutations (not the Sevarius kind) are likely to occur. They occur to some degree in all species. I was simply positing (and only positing) that Gargoyles might have a gene that causes mutations to occur more frequently. But mostly, garg appearance is defined by heredity.

4. I don't have to sell you on anything. For starters, I'm not sure I've sold myself on it. Second, I'm under no obligation to compete with your personal beliefs. Third, if it isn't in the 66 -- I'm not guaranteeing it. Even some of that is suspect. Sevarius theorized that gargs absorb solar energy while stone. But that was just a theory. He may have been right. He may have been wrong. He may have been partially right. Or he may have been lying intentionally. See?



: « First : « 25 : Displaying #221 - #245 of 263 records. : 25 » : Last » :