A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Sorry if this was asked already, but I was wondering why Lexington's wing structure was so unique when compared to all the gargoyles we've seen, ie: the webbing between his arms and legs rather than wings coming out of his back?
Thanks for a wonderful show. Good luck getting it back in the public eye in some form or another.
Lex's wings are unique relative to his clan mates who survived. They're not common, but as we meet more gargs, I'm sure we'll see more with that kind of structure.
We've seen four structures:
Goliath, Hudson and Broadway have one kind.
Demona, Brooklyn and Angela have another.
Lex has a third.
Desdemona had a fourth.
Oh, and Griff, Leo, Zafiro and Una had a fifth.
One last one for today promise!
Does Goliath ever stand up straight his legs are always bent at the knees always . How come? Thank alot Bye
He stands pretty darn straight in my opinion. But garg legs are more like haunches. His knees do not extend fully.
Here's an iffy question for ya..do a gargoyle's eyes glow when he/she is..um..aroused?
It would depend on how much adrenaline was surging...
Some questions about garg-beasts:
1. I was looking at some screenshots of Bronx and wasn´t able to find anyone where you can see his pupils.
So are Bronx´s eyes allways glowing? Can´t they stop?
2. This question might seem stupid, but: Are gargoylebeasts furry? (Sometimes I think they have hair, sometimes they don´t. - The stomach seems to be furry, but I´m not shure.)
3. If they are furry (or some of them), are also gargoylebeasts able, that have longer hair (like the different hair length of different dog races, for example), maybe that long, that they have to be trimed regulary so that it doesn´t reach the ground? (It´s not an idea, just a question. I was just wondering about in this moment.)
4. More a comment than a question: When once one person asked, if there are any cat-like or just dog-like gargoylebeasts, I think he meant more the looking than the behavior *g*
5. Are any gargoylebeasts out there that have wings, or aren´t they able to?
6. Is it right, that the word "gargoylebeast" or something like that never was used during the hole TV-Show? If so, can it be, that gargoyles never use this word and that they doesn´t even know the word, cause they never needed it, cause they call all gargoyles just "gargoyles" and talk of/with the gargoylebeasts using their name (- In case it´s a gargoylebeast that has a name..)
1. No. They just glow more or less fiercely depending on his mood.
2. Generally, no. But some may have some fur or hair, just as regular gargs do.
3. I doubt it.
4. Does Bronx really look like any dog you know or does his behavior make him seem more dog-like?
5. No. They evolved without.
6. I don't recall whether or not we used that phrase. We certainly used the word "beast". In "HOUND OF ULSTER" at least.
I think we can observe another example of what could be termed the gargoyles "genetic imperitive to protect." We can establish, already, that they exist in opposition to the pressures of natural selection that are usually internal to a species. (I suspect infanticide among them is low.) Every member of the species invests it's energies in the interests and well being of the entire species, as opposed to the individual. We can even observe this protective instinct to cross the species barrier. They invest way too much energy in protecting humans, in my opinion.
Perhaps, it's more than a protective instinct. Perhaps the inclination to protect is part of a larger phenomenon, at work. Perhaps they are what we could call "superassociative." They interact with one another and other species to an unusual extent. We have even seen a willingness among them to pursue courtship with non gargoyles. This is so dynamically opposed to the way evolution works in nature, that it could account for their small numbers.
Perhaps you could comment on some of this?
I think Goliath and Elisa's relationship is HIGHLY UNUSUAL, but I agree it may be a natural end result of years of Gargoyle evolution toward "superassociation". Maybe humans and gargoyles both are evolving toward some sort of enlightenment that borders on the religious.
As to their small numbers, it's a chicken/egg thing. They reproduce so infrequently. I think once upon a time there was a risk of Gargoyles being a species that threatened to overtake the world -- as humans eventually succeeded in doing. Gargs were tough, intelligent, mobile, cooperative and nearly invulnerable -- even when asleep. Maybe Mother Nature gave them some handicaps on purpose. Maybe humanity was created as competition.
I sometimes feel like Mother Nature is now trying very hard to kill off a huge portion of humans. But she waited too long. Hurricanes, earthquakes, diseases. We die. But not in great enough numbers to reduce our dominance. And we keep learning new ways to outwit her, to subjugate her. Even destroy her.
I'm not really trying to assign an anthropomorphic intelligence to Nature. But maybe Evolution isn't simply a species by species thing. Maybe Evolution also works on a PLANETARY scale. As part of a whole.
I know that gargoyle eggs don't turn to stone, because of AVALON part one, but do the beings inside them turn to stone? Do newly hatched hatchlings turn to stone, as the might not have enough force to break from their stone shells by themselves.
Uh, I've answered this recently, I think. Check the archives under Garg Science.
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.