A Station Eight Fan Web Site
ok... I'm back with my bio q's...
1) well, this first one is more related to the canonicity of their biology... as their reproductive rate was never actually defined in the series, is their reproductive cycle as you have described it set in stone (proverbially speaking), or is there some significant leeway for further development of the specifics, perhaps going so far as to allowing for a faster cycle, still slower than humans, but perhaps more dynamic, maybe along the lines of kangaroos, the females of which can store male genetic material for a number of years (advantageous if one's mate is killed, and substitutes are unavailable or otherwise unsuitable), and choose the best time for pregnancy?
oops... that might be more than 1 question... 8P
2) now for a directly pertinent q... do the eggs experience stone sleep between the laying and the hatching, and if so does it correspond to the adult cycle? given the garg 'rookery' behavior, stone sleep doesnt seem to be necessary, as the rookery is always guarded at night, and very few predators large enough to handle garg eggs (there arent many able to bust an ostrich egg, and gargs' are bigger still) would be able to get into a sealed rookery, given that gargs tend to block the entrances with _big_ rocks! even if the behavior dates back to the dinosaur era, when there were predators able to eat them, they would have been hard pressed to get into the kinds of spaces gargs have been shown to place the rookeries...
3) and this'll be my last for now... as to the gargate question... they had to have a lineage to branch from... is it unreasonable to think that they are, however long ago, branched from certain known dinosaur groups? perhaps they shared a common proto-garg/dinosaur ancestor...
Oh, good, more bio questions...
2. Is there a question here? If so, I think the answer is yes. But you lost me.
3. It's possible. Though it could be the other way around, you know?
hey Greg... this is not so much a question as a correction to one of your earlier answers regarding gargs in space... the poster asked how a garg -- in the flesh as opposed to stone sleep -- would fare if exposed to hard vacuum (space) without a spacesuit... I hate to say it, but animals dont explode under those circumstances -- although attempting to hold ones breath would prove fatal (but not instantly so), as the alveoli in the lungs would rupture, making it impossible for the blood to absorb oxygen if the person were returned to normal atmosphere. if one were to _not_ hold their breath, the oxygen in the lungs would just go out of the circulatory system in reverse, leading to unconsciousness in about 30 seconds, and death by oxygen deprivation about 90 seconds later. side effects include burst capillaries at the skin surface, swelling of skin and other tissues,joint inflammation and dehydration
and just in case anybody else asks, one cannot freeze instantly in a vacuum either -- that was stupid F/X in M2M...
I do have a few questions on garg biology, but those will be posted separately...
I was actually thinking about a Sean Connery movie called "Outpost" or "Outland" or something.
Anyway, I'll take your word for it, but let me ask, HOW DO YOU KNOW? Have you tested this on someone?
This just hit me after watching the first season finale of a TV show about a certain Vampire Slayer, then Hunter's Moon.
Your ramblings on the wind ceremony did not have a little point about what happens to the corpse of a Gargoyle if it
is not cremated by morning.
Something tells me that the dead would not turn to stone at dawn. Since I seem like a jerk with this question if that assumption is wrong... I don't know.
What happens if a gargoyle experiences clinical death and crosses the threshhold of dawn while still in a state of death?
Will the Gargoyle turn to stone while dead, or what?
Assuming the gargoyle remains flesh after dawn, what will happen if he or she is revived.
No. It's a biological process. The dead would not turn to stone at dawn. Because the bodies dead. Not breathing. Not doing any of the things a live gargoyle would do, like turn to stone.
As to your last question, it's not very likely, and in any case has never been tested...
I just read your answer to my first question about the clones (thanks!) Just to clarify the question you made, the clones who spoke had digitized voices. Brentwood, Hollywood, and Burbank had brief phrases, digitized. So maybe this will help in the explanation. Now, here's just a few questions on garg biology:
1: Do gargoyles have similar vocal cords to humans, or something different?
2: Are gargoyle bones (especially the wings) made of bone or cartilege? Gargoyle wings are pretty flexible.
3: HOW DO GARGOYLES DO THE COOL EYE-FLARE THREAT???!!!
OK, that's it. Until next time!
I do not recall any futzing on the voices. I'll have to listen to the episodes to confirm what you said. No one had "digitized voices" or put another way, they all did, since they were recorded digitally. But as I said, I'll check some day.
1. They have two sets of vocal cords, one for talking, one for roars, etc.
2. There's bone in there, but I don't know how many joints.
Okay, so we all know that garg eggs are laid in even-decade-8 years (948, 1988, etc.) and hatch in odd-decade-8 years (998, 1958, etc.), and we all know that gargoyles age at about half the human rate, so that a 42-year-old garg is old enough to go to bars, but! what I want to know is at what approximate (human equivalent) level of development gargs hatch? The females lactate, so I'd guess most hatchlings don't start with teeth, but at a ten-year incubation period, it seems likely that garg hatchlings are more developed than human newborns. How much more, if any?
(By the way, this is my first post, and I read the whole Archive first. Aren't you proud of me? ;P)
I'm so proud. They hatch at what I'd describe as just post infant. They are strong enough to hold their own heads errect. But not much more advanced than that.
Despite the fact that I'm hopelessly behind in my planned attempt to respond to all you episode rambles, I'm gonna take some time out to ask you a few questions I've been thinking about. This set is about gargoyle-beasts.
1. Would the Manhattan clan refer to Bronx as a "gargoyle-beast", a "gargoyle", or something else entirely. In other words, do they use a different name for Bronx's species than their own?
2. We know that Bronx is at least as smart as a very intelligent dog, possibly smarter. He's at least capable of thoughts such as "That is a big dangerous monster. I should most likely attack it." ("The Hound of Ulster") and "That is a robot. I may therefore maul its face, though this may not be permissible on a human being." ("Leader of the Pack") Something along those lines, though maybe not with such flowery language. Anyways, about how smart IS Bronx, or the average gargoyle-beast? Are the beasts in fact as intelligent as regular gargoyles, but simply unable to speak? As smart as chimpanzees? Not nearly as smart as I seem to think they are?
3. The other gargoyles in the Manhattan clan seem to realize that Bronx has a fair degree of intelligence. Lexington and Brooklyn tell him to "go get help" rather than "go find Goliath" or even "go back to the castle and bark". (Okay, so he did end up running down the street and causing havoc. But he understood.) Goliath tells him to "help Angela", not "move the roccks off of Angela".
How much does the clan think Bronx understands. Just commands like these? Or does Hudson think he understands every word he says when he talks to him?
1. Generally, no. Which doesn't mean they aren't aware of the distinction. They do call him a beast on occasion.
2. They're pretty darn smart. They understand something like "FIND GOLIATH!" But they couldn't understand. "Hide in the dark for five minutes and then FIND GOLIATH!" The first part of that sentence would be gibberish to them. And they'd immediately take off in search of Goliath.
3. Simple commands only. Find. Help. Protect. Etc.
Hi Greg. I don't mean to be annoying, but with all the studying I've been doing for my Boards exam, biology has sort of taken over my life. I know that stone hibernation is unknown in the rest of the animal kingdom, but gargoyles still have to obey fundamental biological laws, on which my questions are based:
1a) When gargoyles turn into the stone-like substance, does this include all of different cell types in their body (muscles, nerves, blood, bone)? 1b) I've seen their hair and nails transform as well. How do you explain this, as these cells are already "dead", and shouldn't respond to any signal made by the body? 2a) What happens to the water inside gargoyle's cells when they turn to the stone-like substance? 2b) What happens to the water in the gargoyle's blood when they turn to the stone-like substance? 2c) If the blood or nerves have solidified into the stone-like substance, how is the gargoyle "biological clock" able to send signals to the rest of the body that tell it when to transform? 3) Are cells that have turned into this stone-like substance active in any way? Please explain this in terms of how: a) gargoyles supposedly don't age when they sleep b) gargoyles can still dream when they sleep c) gargoyles can convert sunlight into a storable form of energy when they sleep d) gargoyles can heal wounds while they sleep. 4) If you said there is no water in the blood and tissues, there can be no diffusion of vital ions and molecules into and out of cells. How then are they able carry out the processes mentioned in question 3? 5) Gargoyles are obviously frozen and cannot move their lungs to breathe when they sleep. Therefore, where do they get the gases needed to feed the cells that are working so hard to store solar energy while they sleep? 6) Are you still certain that gargoyles turning to "stone" is a process done naturally and without magic (except their clothes and personal items)? =)
1a. They all turn into an organic monochrome stone-esque substance, but that doesn't mean it's all a single substance. Maybe there are differentiations. I don't know. But none that you'd notice with the naked eye.
1b. Maybe their hair and nails do.
2a, b, c. Don't know. Hey, I've got an idea! Instead of using your bio-knowledge to nit-pick, why not use it to come up with an explanation!! (I know that sounds snide, but I'm serious.)
a, b, c, d. Don't know. (As you can tell, I'm NOT studying for my boards.)
5. Got me.
6. YES. Look, Vashkoda, this post is INCREDIBLY ANNOYING, despite the fact that you claimed you didn't want it to be. It's also BEYOND arrogant. I admit I know next to nothing about biology, but do you really think that you or even modern science is currently aware of EVERY POSSIBLE PERMUTATION that evolutionary paths COULD have taken? Look at all the miracles in nature which we take for granted because we're used to the idea. Chameleons. Electric eels. The EYE. (These just off the top of my head.) You will say, "Yeah, Greg, but those conform to the fundamental biological laws." To which I respond, that the fundamental biological laws have been written and rewritten to include this stuff. And they're constantly being rewritten again, almost every day. Cuz almost everyday, I see an article in the L.A. Times about some knew startling discovery about dinosaurs or deep-deep sea life or whatever. So don't tell me that the Gargs don't fit "fundamental biological laws". Aside from the fact that they are fictional, my response is that science hasn't caught up to them yet. Didn't have a reason to or an awareness to even try until after "HUNTER'S MOON, PART THREE". And even then, they haven't had a lot to work with.
I've said it before. Gargoyles are a species native to this world. The basic processes they go through are organic and natural and have nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with magic. Unless by magic, you mean the miracle that life exists at all.
Sorry, for the rant, but it felt like you were writing JUST to try to push me in a corner and make me admit a "mistake".
I apologize if your motives were pure.
In your opinion, in the Gargoyles Universe, can artificial intelligences such as the Matrix and Talos develop emotions (love, hatred, fear, etc.)? Or are their thought processes ones of pure logic?
At the moment or ever?
And now a question for those of us with dirty minds... <evil laughter> :-)
Where the heck does Zafiro keep his genitalia? I mean the guy's *very* anatomically different, compared to the other gargoyles... Is he like dolphins or something where the genitalia are tucked inside the body unless when aroused?
This is in response to your 'Leader of the Pack' memo. I noticed that the writer must have had a scene where the gargs' stone shards dissolve, because in the memo you mend it. However, I think that there may have been something there.
Don't misinterpret me. You know your series better than anyone else, yet it seems like a dissolving method would've been a good way to tie up the plot hole of what happens to all those stone shards.
What if the stone simply went into "hyper-rusting," where it loses cohesion over the course of the next few hours and eventually crumbles to dust, and is then swept away by the wind? Since the gargs usually perch on high places, the winds would even help in the break-down process. If not wind, then rain would accomplish the same thing.
This wouldn't conflict with "The Price" because Hudson uses a fresh stone shard. It hasn't had time to breakdown. And as for "Hunter's Moon," well, there are always inconsistencies in nature. It was just the little shard that could.
(Incidentally, it DID seem as if "The Price" was out-of-order. Not because of any detail or clue, but just the feel. It didn't seem to fit as the last ep before "Avalon." Moreover, if it aired AFTER the World Tour, as I presume it should have, that really would've helped with that section of the series - it was a bit thin ep-wise. And of course there's the way Xanatos' quest for immortality is confronted and pulled into question, and then shown progressing normally later on in the World Tour. Still, the episode is one of the best, no matter where it was positioned.)
"The Price" wasn't THAT far out of order. It was definitely designed to air before "Avalon" and the World Tour. It originally aired even earlier. So that a couple episodes where Owen's hand was still flesh aired AFTER "The Price." But since Owen's hand was stone during "Kingdom", it's obvious that "The Price" wasn't meant to come after that. And therefore couldn't have taken place anytime after "Avalon". And your point about Xanatos' quest completely escapes me.
As for your dissolving shard theory, I never said that the shards were impervious to wind and weather. I just said they don't instantaneously start to dissolve. And they don't. Not in my Gargoyles Universe.
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.
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?