Talk:2653: Omnitaur - Revision history

172.70.135.44: Left comment about the human segment

2025-04-13T00:28:23Z

Left comment about the human segment

Kynde at 07:52, 4 August 2022

2022-08-04T07:52:51Z

172.70.162.147: Rather than fake the .sig

2022-08-03T23:29:51Z

Rather than fake the .sig

GreatWyrmGold: Dragons! Also indentation correction!

2022-08-03T23:12:49Z

Dragons! Also indentation correction!

172.70.211.134: comment

2022-08-03T21:57:30Z

comment

BunsenH: Dish of the Day

2022-08-03T15:39:44Z

Dish of the Day

172.69.33.123: Agree

2022-08-03T12:27:39Z

Agree

172.70.85.221: Survived a rewrite of what I meant, despite now being the wring word...

2022-08-03T10:37:22Z

Survived a rewrite of what I meant, despite now being the wring word...

172.70.85.13 at 10:33, 3 August 2022

2022-08-03T10:33:13Z

172.70.250.67 at 09:39, 3 August 2022

2022-08-03T09:39:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:28, 13 April 2025
Line 64:		Line 64:
	<br />And sea-creatures complicate it all only because most people don't get to see whole living fish the same as land-based creatures, and the limbs have evolved (or remained) as motive fins, flukes, etc, for all tetrapod-lineage creatures. (Side-note, Randall missed a trick, not putting the Shark segment in the right spot to justify a stereotypical protruding dorsal fin, like he had horns, beak, hooves, etc. Perhaps it overlapped too much so was refined down to just contrast pelts/skins instead.) Not to mention the octopodes and other rather more 'exotic' or archaic bodyplans that have survived and developed in (near-)suspension. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13\|172.70.85.13]] 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)		<br />And sea-creatures complicate it all only because most people don't get to see whole living fish the same as land-based creatures, and the limbs have evolved (or remained) as motive fins, flukes, etc, for all tetrapod-lineage creatures. (Side-note, Randall missed a trick, not putting the Shark segment in the right spot to justify a stereotypical protruding dorsal fin, like he had horns, beak, hooves, etc. Perhaps it overlapped too much so was refined down to just contrast pelts/skins instead.) Not to mention the octopodes and other rather more 'exotic' or archaic bodyplans that have survived and developed in (near-)suspension. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13\|172.70.85.13]] 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
	:Agree on the [[2606\|shark ⧍]] fin. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.123\|172.69.33.123]] 12:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)		:Agree on the [[2606\|shark ⧍]] fin. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.123\|172.69.33.123]] 12:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
		+	I'm slightly disappointed that the "human" segment wasn't just a slice of Cueball's head! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.44\|172.70.135.44]]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Note: you can't call sharks "fish" without also calling humans, frogs, and eagles "fish" (if you're using the current taxonomic system based on cladistics). The cartilaginous fishes split from bony fishes long before the tetrapods like us split off from the lineage that became trout, flounder, and guppies. That is, a snake is much more closely related to a grouper than a shark is. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 11:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 : [https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/california-court-ruling-bees-are-fish-bad-logic-good-humans-rcna32971 According to California courts, bees are fish.] (Spoiler: within the meaning of "Fish and Game" or something like that. Personally I think the judges were trolling because they could have more congruously gone with "game" because it was about honeybees which beekeepers obviously catch.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 13:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
-:Fish are a paraphyletic group, but that doesn't make the group "wrong" by cladistics. Cladistics recognizes that its common for one branch of a group to go off and do something very divergent, and that the remaining members often have a lot of shared characteristics that make it useful to talk about them. For example, "stem mammals", which excludes actual mammals. Cladistics has stronger objections to polyphyly, which is grouping animals together that aren't a cladistic group with some very clear exceptions. It still recognizes the groups though, classifying them as polyphyletic groups. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.82.121|172.71.82.121]] 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
+::Fish are a paraphyletic group, but that doesn't make the group "wrong" by cladistics. Cladistics recognizes that its common for one branch of a group to go off and do something very divergent, and that the remaining members often have a lot of shared characteristics that make it useful to talk about them. For example, "stem mammals", which excludes actual mammals. Cladistics has stronger objections to polyphyly, which is grouping animals together that aren't a cladistic group with some very clear exceptions. It still recognizes the groups though, classifying them as polyphyletic groups. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.82.121|172.71.82.121]] 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 : Sure, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Humans and stem mammals are more closely related to each other than either is to, say, an earthworm. There is no jamming in a distant relative while excluding closer ones. A "fish" classification ''in taxonomy'' that doesn't include humans but does include sharks is like a "canines" classification that includes dogs and foxes but excludes coyotes. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
-::^ This editor paraphyletizes. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 14:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
+:::^ This editor paraphyletizes. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 14:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 The speculation section needs a discussion of how living {{w|turducken}} could be engineered. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.88|172.70.211.88]] 11:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 [[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 :Or young ladies... Or other dragons acording to Narnia which has already been mentioned in the explanation --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
-:It depends a lot on the dragon. East Asia had no knights as we'd recognize them (leave your arguments about samurai just being Japanese knights at the door, please), and few dragons who'd be inclined to eat either them or damsels. According to a brief skim of one Wikipedia page, some myths say they just drink water but their diet doesn't come up much. The piasa of North America will eat basically any kind of person, the peluda fed on livestock, several individual dragons (try to) feed on the sun, Orochi drank booze...it varies a lot.
+:It depends a lot on the dragon. East Asia had no knights as we'd recognize them (leave your arguments about samurai just being Japanese knights at the door, please), and few dragons who'd be inclined to eat either them or damsels. According to a brief skim of one Wikipedia page, some myths say they just drink water but their diet doesn't come up much. The piasa of North America will eat basically any kind of person, the peluda fed on livestock, several individual dragons (try to) feed on the sun, Orochi drank booze...it varies a lot. {{unsigned|GreatWyrmGold|23:12, 3 August 2022}}
 The song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3-KpdPjs0 Mis-Conceptions] describes something like the omnitaur. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67|172.70.250.67]] 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 It has been noted that getting a human from the mating of two Omnitars is genetically unlikely or even impossible. But what if the Omnitar is not a genetic mix, but a tetragametic chimera, Frankenstein's monster, or something similar? In other words, what if it is not created by mixing the genetics of all of these creatures but by mixing parts from multiple creatures, each part being genetically entirely from the species it represents? If this is the case, and if Randall decided not to label the reproductive system for whatever reason, the creature may have human gonads. In this event, its children will be normal humans, in so much as someone born from and possibly raised by two Omnitars could ever turn out normal. [[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
-:Dragons in Chinese folklore/mythology are described as chimeric, often with very specific breakdowns of the parts involved. I've seen versions with up to a dozen animals, but the first one I found on Google was: "The head of a camel, the horns of a stag, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the neck of a snake, the belly of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of an eagle and the paws of a tiger." That seems like something worth mentioning...somewhere. I just dunno where. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
+Dragons in Chinese folklore/mythology are described as chimeric, often with very specific breakdowns of the parts involved. I've seen versions with up to a dozen animals, but the first one I found on Google was: "The head of a camel, the horns of a stag, the eyes of a demon, the ears of a cow, the neck of a snake, the belly of a clam, the scales of a carp, the claws of an eagle and the paws of a tiger." That seems like something worth mentioning...somewhere. I just dunno where. [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 00:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 It's not "hard to know what dragons eat." Traditionally their staple diet is knights in armour.
 [[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 :Or young ladies... Or other dragons acording to Narnia which has already been mentioned in the explanation --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 The song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3-KpdPjs0 Mis-Conceptions] describes something like the omnitaur. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67|172.70.250.67]] 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ::There are only those two taurs mentioned and there are many other creatures made from animals with different name. It has both human and bull in it (I know it has all the others as well), but to me it seems obvious that Randall is aware this is an anagram of Mino to Omni. And then of course it encompasses most other mythical creatures, given the meanin of Omni. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 :::True, surely he's aware of it. My point is: It's either an anagram that also happens to have the meaning "omni" or it has the meaning "omni" and also happens to be an anagram. My bet is on the latter. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 I dread to think what this thing must look like internally. Especially when I remember the centaurs from C S Lewis' 'Narnia' stories, who are depicted eating two meals - a huge roast meal "to satisfy the man stomach" and a meal of grass "to satisfy the horse stomach". Bleagh.[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 07:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ::It was depicted with pig ears and nose in one of the video adaptations. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 18:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 ::The book says "A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips." That's a cow. I changed it. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 .whose sona is this 🤨 --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.113|172.70.110.113]] 16:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 3 August 2022
Line 59:		Line 59:
	<br />The interesting thing here is what memetics were used. Birds were considered bipedal with wings, and humans bipeds with arms, rather than all being tetrapod with considerable longitudinal respecialisation. Though forelegs and hindlegs are still often quite different, in other creatures for weight-distribution purposes if nothing else... T-rex, kangaroo, etc.		<br />The interesting thing here is what memetics were used. Birds were considered bipedal with wings, and humans bipeds with arms, rather than all being tetrapod with considerable longitudinal respecialisation. Though forelegs and hindlegs are still often quite different, in other creatures for weight-distribution purposes if nothing else... T-rex, kangaroo, etc.
	<br />And sea-creatures complicate it all only because most people don't get to see whole living fish the same as land-based creatures, and the limbs have evolved (or remained) as motive fins, flukes, etc, for all tetrapod-lineage creatures. (Side-note, Randall missed a trick, not putting the Shark segment in the right spot to justify a stereotypical protruding dorsal fin, like he had horns, beak, hooves, etc. Perhaps it overlapped too much so was refined down to just contrast pelts/skins instead.) Not to mention the octopodes and other rather more 'exotic' or archaic bodyplans that have survived and developed in (near-)suspension. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13\|172.70.85.13]] 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)		<br />And sea-creatures complicate it all only because most people don't get to see whole living fish the same as land-based creatures, and the limbs have evolved (or remained) as motive fins, flukes, etc, for all tetrapod-lineage creatures. (Side-note, Randall missed a trick, not putting the Shark segment in the right spot to justify a stereotypical protruding dorsal fin, like he had horns, beak, hooves, etc. Perhaps it overlapped too much so was refined down to just contrast pelts/skins instead.) Not to mention the octopodes and other rather more 'exotic' or archaic bodyplans that have survived and developed in (near-)suspension. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13\|172.70.85.13]] 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
		+	:Agree on the [[2606\|shark ⧍]] fin. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.123\|172.69.33.123]] 12:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 Not worth an Explanation note, but "{{wiktionary|taur}}" is also a (modern) word, shortening of "centaur" to depict, typically, the general hexapod form of animal quadruped plus human two-limbed upper.
 <br />Also western-myth dragons are often hexapod, along with pegasi/hippogriffs/etc, having abdominal/ventral wing-limbs plus four legs. Which just demonstrates that myth-making was done without much nod to comparative physiology where four limbs tends to be the template for most typical baseline-creatures not serpents (zero), insects (six) or arachnids (eight). Unless you pay attention to the likes of Plato or the Bible who had their own ideas.
-<br />The interesting thing here is what memetics were used. Birds were considered bipedal with wings, and humans bipeds with arms, rather than all being tetrapod with considerable lateral respecialisation. Though forelegs and hindlegs are still often quite different, in other creatures for weight-distribution purposes if nothing else... T-rex, kangaroo, etc.
+<br />The interesting thing here is what memetics were used. Birds were considered bipedal with wings, and humans bipeds with arms, rather than all being tetrapod with considerable longitudinal respecialisation. Though forelegs and hindlegs are still often quite different, in other creatures for weight-distribution purposes if nothing else... T-rex, kangaroo, etc.
 <br />And sea-creatures complicate it all only because most people don't get to see whole living fish the same as land-based creatures, and the limbs have evolved (or remained) as motive fins, flukes, etc, for all tetrapod-lineage creatures. (Side-note, Randall missed a trick, not putting the Shark segment in the right spot to justify a stereotypical protruding dorsal fin, like he had horns, beak, hooves, etc. Perhaps it overlapped too much so was refined down to just contrast pelts/skins instead.) Not to mention the octopodes and other rather more 'exotic' or archaic bodyplans that have survived and developed in (near-)suspension. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13|172.70.85.13]] 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:33, 3 August 2022
Line 54:		Line 54:

	The song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3-KpdPjs0 Mis-Conceptions] describes something like the omnitaur. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67\|172.70.250.67]] 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)		The song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3-KpdPjs0 Mis-Conceptions] describes something like the omnitaur. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67\|172.70.250.67]] 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	Not worth an Explanation note, but "{{wiktionary\|taur}}" is also a (modern) word, shortening of "centaur" to depict, typically, the general hexapod form of animal quadruped plus human two-limbed upper.
		+	<br />Also western-myth dragons are often hexapod, along with pegasi/hippogriffs/etc, having abdominal/ventral wing-limbs plus four legs. Which just demonstrates that myth-making was done without much nod to comparative physiology where four limbs tends to be the template for most typical baseline-creatures not serpents (zero), insects (six) or arachnids (eight). Unless you pay attention to the likes of Plato or the Bible who had their own ideas.
		+	<br />The interesting thing here is what memetics were used. Birds were considered bipedal with wings, and humans bipeds with arms, rather than all being tetrapod with considerable lateral respecialisation. Though forelegs and hindlegs are still often quite different, in other creatures for weight-distribution purposes if nothing else... T-rex, kangaroo, etc.
		+	<br />And sea-creatures complicate it all only because most people don't get to see whole living fish the same as land-based creatures, and the limbs have evolved (or remained) as motive fins, flukes, etc, for all tetrapod-lineage creatures. (Side-note, Randall missed a trick, not putting the Shark segment in the right spot to justify a stereotypical protruding dorsal fin, like he had horns, beak, hooves, etc. Perhaps it overlapped too much so was refined down to just contrast pelts/skins instead.) Not to mention the octopodes and other rather more 'exotic' or archaic bodyplans that have survived and developed in (near-)suspension. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13\|172.70.85.13]] 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 3 August 2022
Line 52:		Line 52:
	[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass\|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass\|talk]]) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)		[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass\|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass\|talk]]) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
	:Or young ladies... Or other dragons acording to Narnia which has already been mentioned in the explanation --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 08:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)		:Or young ladies... Or other dragons acording to Narnia which has already been mentioned in the explanation --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 08:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
		+
		+	The song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b3-KpdPjs0 Mis-Conceptions] describes something like the omnitaur. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.67\|172.70.250.67]] 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)