A Station Eight Fan Web Site
I wondered about how the mating of english gargoyles genetically works.
1. If a lion-type gargoyle mates with a griffon-type gargoyle, could their son or daughter be a unicorn-type gargoyle?
2. Or asked in another way: Have some griffon-type gargoyles also the genetically code for unicorn-type and lion-type gargoyles in their heritages and could give them to their descendants? (And lion-type gargs the ones of unicorn- and griffon-typed gargs, and so on.)
3. Is it right to think, that all genes, that make a lion-type gargolye to a lion-type gargoyle and a griffon-type gargoyle to a griffon-type gargoyle are coupled to each other, so that it can´t happen that for example a gargoyle hatches, that looks half like a lion and half like a griffon and a bit like an unicorn?
1. Not likely, unless there's a recessive gene in their from some other ancestor.
2. See above.
3. All combinations are possible. Look at Angela and Gabriel.
Hello Mr. Weisman.
Punchinello, here again, with a new sort of ramble. I intend to pose this to you in the hopes that it will elicit comment from you, even though it is not a proper question.
I was thinking, recently, about darwinian evolution and the phenomenon of infanticide. A few popular authors like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker have made the idea that infanticide functions towards a selective advantage in the evolution of many species somewhat popular in the last couple of years. It can be observed among lions, killing the offspring of male rivals. In this way, nature can ensure that the lion is not investing his energy in protection of young that will not advance his genetic lineage. At the same time, I had been thinking of some of the more unusual features of your gargoyles. In particular, the extrordinarily robust array of physical forms. Polymorphisms within their species are more exaggerated than any species possesses in real life, to the point where we can observe within the same species, the variety of forms represented by the trio, as well as Zafiro, Una, etc. I had been considering the idea that their diversity may be due to the possibility that they are not subject to the rules imposed by natural selection through predation. (At least among their own species. I imagine that they can still be preyed upon by other animals. I think you even demonstrated this, although the animals capable of doing them harm are almost certainly few.)
It would seem that this idea finds conjunction with other aspects of the nature of the gargoyles. They raise their young collectively, and do not even distinguish between their own offspring and the offspring of other gargoyles. This would seem to run in direct contradiction to the way natural selection, selects lineages for propagation. The strong gargoyles invest as much energy in raising the young of the weaker gargoyles as they do in raising their own young. This is interesting on several levels. First, it implicates the gargoyles as a species that are subject to their own branch of nature; something which exists, at least in part, outside of natural selection as we know it. It could also account for that remarkable polymorphism of theirs. It occurs to me that all other species look essentially like one another because certain genes have been selected to be passed down to succeeding generations. The parents that successfully raise their offspring. Among the gargoyles, you observe a different side of nature, wherein, the strong and the weak intermix, and have been passing down all of their selective adaptations and physical attributes since the origin of the species. There is not any competitive pressure within the species to selectively eliminate those features and regulate their form. As a result, you get this wild assortment of horns, tails, beaks, muzzles, etc.
It finds even further relevence, in the "protective" nature of the gargoyles. It would make sense that a species with an inclination to protect the weak would be subject to the alternate "rules of evolution" I am considering here. Contrary to conventional evolution, they are completely non-discriminatory. The gargoyles and gargate beasts seem to be integrated into a single community, and they both integrate themselves into the various communites of humans, forming a cooperative (hopefully) relationship. I wonder if other clans, such as the Guatemalan's, do not form cooperative relationships with other species due to their integration into the wilderness and proximity to wildlife.
Wow, very cool ideas there. I agree whole-heartedly with your assessments.
And even the Guatemalan Gargs once lived in peace with their human Mayan "brothers". So they fit too if you look at the LONG haul.
Evolution has always fascinated me a bit. Look at the whale. The whale didn't evolve directly from a fish. Fish became amphibians which eventually became reptiles which eventually became mammals which eventually looked like lemurs or something, which eventually evolved into something that returned to the water and eventually evolved into a big old WHALE that resembles a fish more than it resembles us, though of course we're much closer genetically to a whale than either the whale or we are to a fish. Their are a lot of routes to any end.
I am not sure whether this question has been asked or answered or not, and forgive me for not having the time to go through the entire archive to find it, but I have been wondering:
1. In all the flashbacks we see Bronx as the only garg beast in Castle Wyvern. If that's so then where did Boudicca come from? Is she Bronx's or were there other beasts that we just didn't see?
2. And if she is Bronx's then could he mate with her or does it really matter in garg clans if biological relatives mate? Not like they'd know or anything, but wouldn't it dilute the bloodlines? I know Cheetahs have that problem and they are quickly becoming extict. I wouldn't want gargoyles to become extinct from such a problem :-)
Thanx for your time!
1. Bronx wasn't the only Garg Beast at Wyvern. Just the only one (who wasn't an egg at the time) who survived. He's not old enough to have been Boudicca's father.
2. Gargs and gargbeasts probably have a sense of smell that prevents incest.
Quick "fanboy" question:
Goliath is as Alpha Male of a pack as they come. He seems to have counterparts in other clans. Is that a finer part of the "two kinds of gargoyles" question, or is it coincidence (like chance that each generation tends to have a few really "big boy"s)? Just curious. Thanks again.
What's the "two kind of gargoyles" question you're referring too?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but think of it this way, some guys are tall. Some aren't.
we know that grgoyle adults turn to stone in the day but do unhatched gargoyle eggs?
The shell is made of that same kind of organic stone-like substance. The fetus inside changes back and forth.
I have a question as to what would happen in a situatuion.
Let's use Brooklyn as an example. Say, somehow Brooklyn looses the end of his tail, whether it is severed in battle or broken off during the day when he turns to stone. Would a stonemason or a scupture, when he's in his stone sleep, be able to carve the remander of the tail so that it looks normal again, or at least not like part of it had been severed? I know it would shorten it by a good bit, but would it simply be a cosmetic change or would Brooklyn awake with a massively mauled tail? I'd bet that huge carvings (like Jackal's fantasy to carve Goliath's face into a likeness of his own) would kill them, but would something smaller, like a tail in this case?
I doubt it would kill him. And the final extent of the damage would depend on how early in the day your stomemason set to work, i.e. how much time Brooklyn had to heal. But think about what you're asking. Your mason is carving away skin to reveal what is really bone, muscle, etc.
I mean, man, what a gross question. Yuck.
why do civilians like macbeth and xanatos have laser weapons while the police force is using automatics and slugs?
Macbeth largely uses Electro-Magnetic technology, but I get your point. Both these guys are extremely rich and have the time and money to invest in the development of hi-tech experimental weapons.
And generally speaking, aren't cops always a step behind technologically? (That's not meant as a criticism, just as a reality check.)
I tend to annoying nitpicking, sorry. When somebody asked why gargoyles have breasts if they lay eggs you responded "Don't tell the platypus". I think they sweat milk all over their body to feed the younguns, and don't use actual breasts. I am less sure of it, but I believe the other egg laying mammal, the spiny anteater, feeds her young with breasts. I spent a lot of time watching PBS when I was little- it annoyed my baby sitters to no end.
The good thing about my extensive knowledge of mostly useless trivia does lead to some interesting tidbits- like: You seemed surprised to find out there is a town in Israel named Dimona. Here's the fun part: Dimona houses a 'toy factory' that is widely believed to be the nuclear weapons facilities. As for the etymology, I don't know.
I had a strange thought- you said in your mind gargoyles and gargoyle beasts are the only two members of the Gargate family (class?, it has been a while since I knew the different parts of scientific names). Out of curiosity- do they, like humans, have a whole bunch of ancestor, and near ancestor species that did not make it?
Gargoyles are the "second sentient race"! What was the one that did not manage to hang on? Were they completely native to this planet? Did they have any genetic descendents surviving onto today or at least times when modern humans existed? Did they have any involvement in the rise of the other sentient races of this planet?
1. I'm not telling.
2. They were native to the planet. Wouldn't count if they weren't. (For example, I don't count Nokkar as one of the sentient races on Earth.)
3. Don't overthink. But Yes.
4. Define "involvement".