gfish | (no subject)

(no subject)

I just spent about 45 minutes working out the full taxonomic classification of a steam-powered scavenger bird for a story which I might not even write and which would never include this detail anyway. I'm not sure it was a very good use of my time, but it sure was fun.

Coal Vulture, Machinae Noous Aves Accipitriformes Cathartidae Vultur Anthrax

V. anthrax is such a great binomial name. And given what a horrible pest these things would be, it's very fitting.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Interesting, what's the setting? I ask because biology is already starting to outgrow Linnaean taxonomy in the real world, and it would be even less apt to the phylogeny of built machines, which would be much more like a DAG than a tree.

No specific setting yet, just an idea in search of one. I might throw it into the D&D campaign I'm running, but it really belongs in a sprawling steampunk setting like New Crobuzon.

Going into freeform plot mode... I will say the taxonomy is very contentious, wherever it comes from. The current trend is to simply adopt most of the chain from the nearest biological analog, but what defines nearest? Coal vultures look a lot like biological vultures, because they need the wide wingspan due to their metallic nature. But their habits and ecological niche is much closer to that of a raven or crow, leading to the alternate Machinae Noous Aves Passeriformes Corvidae Corvus Anthrax. But more fundamentally, many authorities question the necessity of the Noous phylum entirely, since non-self-replicating mechanical entities can't properly be considered life. This is countered largely by arguments that even though the Babbage Plague couldn't directly self-replicate, it merely incorporated Human hosts as part of its reproduction cycle. And the survivors, those that can still talk, are very insistent that the goddamned horrible things were alive.

See, this is why I follow your journal — ask a silly question, get an awesome answer.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only