DITL Species 1- Type of Species

[Aaron]

I voted fungas, purely from a selfish desire to see the Orks overrun the Alpha Quadrant.

[Mikey]

[Aaron]

Waaagh!

[Mikey]

Does that mean we'd have to paint all our ships red in order to make them faster?

[Sionnach Glic]

Da red wunz go fasta!

Rochey - there are plants which exhibit some mobility, and at least one fungus I can think of offhand which is completely untied to any location.

Correct. I made a mistake there.

I tend to think Fungus more than plant; be that as it may, here's the thing - they don't have to develop nervous systems exactly the same as ours. Since there are plants and fungi with functional senses of touch and sight (after a fashion,) why is it more far-fetched to think that these may develop to sapience on a more favorable world than the fact that a offshoot of lemurs lost their hair, stood up straight, and made slightly better tools than their chimpanzee cousins?

It's a common fact that, in general, predators are more intelligent than prey. Due mostly to the reason that they need to be able to not just outrun and outfight the prey, but outsmart them as well. Predators need to hunt down and kill other creatures to survive. Hence, inteligence is a requirement in many cases, because we need to be able to locate, stalk, outsmart, entrap and eventualy kill our prey.

Fungi, on the other hand, have no such evolutionary impulse to develop inteligence, because they merely break down and absorb materials from their suroundings. Only the most basic set of mental faculties would ever be needed for this task. What would prompt a fungus to develop inteligence on a par with humans? What would it need this inteligence for that it would be anything other than a burden?

Let's say that on Earth, the impact never occurred which killed the dinosaurs. They might have evolved into a dominant, sapient animal race; or they might not have, since environmental pressure on the dinosaurs was by the late Cretaceous largely at station-keeping. If they didn't, but didn't become extinct, mammal life would never have progressed beyond the large rat/average ferret stage; and the next likely candidate would be sensate, motile plants.

In such a scenario, true sapience would be unlikely to develop at all.

[Aaron]

Does that mean we'd have to paint all our ships red in order to make them faster?

A red stripe around them at the minimum.

[stitch626]

by creatures adapting to their environment

And we have no idea the effects of other planets' environments would have on a creatures development.

Let's do a summary of the image I'm getting of your plant creature:
It is mobile, and presumably fast enough to be able to react to events with the same speed as humans, thus suggesting it has legs or tentacles that allow it to move relatively quickly.
It has sensory organs, presumably including eyes.
It has a brain.
It can identify and respond to events with speed.
It works socialy with other members of its race and eventualy forms communities, and thus eventualy civilisation.
It is able to communicate with other races by sound and has vocal chords. Thus it would have a mouth-analogue, and the ability to inhale and exhale.

That is not a plant, that's an animal. By trying to make your plant-man realistic, you are removing all the defining characteristics of a plant.
Tell me, just what features of a plant do you intend this thing to actualy have?

All that is required for it to be a plant is that photosynthesis occurs.
No animal can do such a thing. Therefore, this plant could be animal-like, but as long as photosynthesis occurs, it is still a plant.

[Sionnach Glic]

And we have no idea the effects of other planets' environments would have on a creatures development.

Then explain to me what sort of environment would prompt these developments from a plant.

All that is required for it to be a plant is that photosynthesis occurs.
No animal can do such a thing. Therefore, this plant could be animal-like, but as long as photosynthesis occurs, it is still a plant.

Only by the most loose definitions, but yes.

So, in short, your creature is actualy just an animal, but with leaves. Exacly what's the point of calling it a plant, if you're going to remove all the most common traits of plants? Why not just say it's a mammal? You'll have the exact same creature, but won't have to jump through hoops to explain how all these evolutionary quirks occured for an organism that shouldn't have need for them.

[stitch626]

Then explain to me what sort of environment would prompt these developments from a plant.

Don't know, I'm not an exobiologist.
Point is, we have no way of knowing the effects of other planets' environments would have on a biological being's development, and it would be foolish to assume that it would be the same as on Earth.

So, in short, your creature is actualy just an animal, but with leaves. Exacly what's the point of calling it a plant, if you're going to remove all the most common traits of plants? Why not just say it's a mammal? You'll have the exact same creature, but won't have to jump through hoops to explain how all these evolutionary quirks occured for an organism that shouldn't have need for them.

For it to be a mammal, it must have hair and it must have mammary glands.
This would have neither. It also would not have a mammalian digestive, respiration, or circulatory system. So it would be less like a mammal than a plant.
From what I remember in my biology class, this creature would be a plant because it carries out photosynthesis. No animal can do such a thing, because at the point where such would occur, our classification system would need to be restructured.

if you're going to remove all the most common traits of plants?

Common on this planet. As has been said before, we have no way of knowing what is common on all other planets of the fictional Star Trek universe.

[Sionnach Glic]

Don't know, I'm not an exobiologist.
Point is, we have no way of knowing the effects of other planets' environments would have on a biological being's development, and it would be foolish to assume that it would be the same as on Earth.

That it's not going to be the same as Earth is a given. The fact remains that it's unlikely to the point of impossibility that any environment would produce such creatures.

For it to be a mammal, it must have hair and it must have mammary glands.
This would have neither. It also would not have a mammalian digestive, respiration, or circulatory system. So it would be less like a mammal than a plant.
From what I remember in my biology class, this creature would be a plant because it carries out photosynthesis. No animal can do such a thing, because at the point where such would occur, our classification system would need to be restructured.

Oh, indeed. If you want to take a look at the biological aspects of it, this hypothetical creature would be nothing like a mammal.

My point was that it is, in effect, an animal. It moves, comunicates, acts, reacts, percieves and interacts exactly the same as an animal.

Let me put it this way. If such a creature turned up in an episode, you would have no idea it was meant to be a plant. The only way you'd know is if it's explicitly stated. And if it was stated, you'd just ask yourself "why did they bother saying they're plants if they're, to all intents and purposes, animals?"

To put it simply, you want to create a plant species, but also want to shoe-horn it into a form where it can be recognisable to you as an animal. You're removing all the stereo-typical characteristics that people associate with plants, in favour of making them just like us, but with green skin and leaves.

I really have to ask, what's the point? If you really want them to act like this, then why not just make them some form of animal? At least that way you don't have to jump through a million or so hoops to get the race to function that way.

Common on this planet. As has been said before, we have no way of knowing what is common on all other planets of the fictional Star Trek universe.

I find it interesting that you're constantly point out to me how their world could be completely different, yet seem to have little interest in making the race itself completely different. Your species is just an animal that can photosynthesise. Again, what's the point?

[stitch626]

Let me put it this way. If such a creature turned up in an episode, you would have no idea it was meant to be a plant. The only way you'd know is if it's explicitly stated.

And the fact that it looked like a plant wouldn't be a big clue?

I find it interesting that you're constantly point out to me how their world could be completely different, yet seem to have little interest in making the race itself completely different. Your species is just an animal that can photosynthesise. Again, what's the point?

Considering we haven't even begun to discuss the creature's biology or history, anything I say at this point would be presumptuous.

All we have voted for is what type of creature we would like to see.

[Tsukiyumi]

It's a "Plantimal".

I was going over the possibilities of a fungal-based sapient life-form; I still think it's feasible, given the right environment. After all, we're only complex colonies of individual cells ourselves. If it were prudent from an evolutionary perspective, I imagine nearly anything might become mobile.

[Sionnach Glic]

And the fact that it looked like a plant wouldn't be a big clue?

Would it? From the mental image I'm getting from your description of it, it seems little more than a very weirdly shaped anymal.

Considering we haven't even begun to discuss the creature's biology or history, anything I say at this point would be presumptuous.

All we have voted for is what type of creature we would like to see.

Point.

Well, it seems that despite my protests, we've gone for a plant of fungal creature. I guess I can't do much more than accept that, and so I will.
Still, I will strongly fight any attempts to make this into some sort of weirdly-skinned animal. You lot voted plant, you're getting a plant.

[Tsukiyumi]

I was thinking more along the lines of a fungal creature basically resembling a moving shag carpet.

[stitch626]

I was thinking a giant talking shroom or a flower with a bunch of vines for "limbs"