Homo svarta...
Johnny1a
GURPS 3e.
Recall that in my backstory, there was a tremendous burst of
speciation in the human evolutionary line during the period from about
350,000 to about 80,000 BP. The resulting Homosentient species were
all closely related genetically, and some of them looked sufficiently
similar that even the members of the species in question might not
realize they were actually different. Others showed considerable
physiognomic differences, though they too were closely related to the
rest. The entire cluster of species falls within the genus _Homo_.
Recall also that the Eldren transported most of the ancestral
populations of the Human race and our cousins off Earth approximately
at about the time of the great Toba supervolcanic eruption. The
majority of the few remaining Homosentients were _H. sapiens_, but
there were a handful of members of other species still on Earth. [1]
One of those species was the breed that would later be categorized by
later Terran taxonomists as _Homo svarta_. Tough they never came
close to matching Human numbers, _H. svarta_ survived and in limited
areas thrived. They became one of multiple sources, in later ages, of
Human legends of such creatures as elves, dwarves, trolls, etc. [2]
(Hence the taxonomical name, the 'svart' root derives from Nordic
legendry.)
Actual _H. svarta_ do bear a resemblance to some versions of the
legendary magical races. The information in the following table
assumes healthy Svarta.
Average height: Males 4'5" to 5'0" Females similar
Average mass: Males 130-150 Females similar
Svarta have HT +1, DX +1 ST +0 IQ +0
(NOTE: Svarta muscle tissue is dense and efficient, thus they are
heavily for their height than Humans, and their physical strength is
comparable to Human in spite of their smaller stature.)
Most Humans regard most Svarta as either Unattractive or Average
(Svarta see Humans similarly).
The popular association of Svarta with underground environs is
accurate, they have indeed evolved to some degree for an underground/
nocturnal existence. Svarta possess the following _innate_ racial
advantages:
Absolute Direction +05
Acute Hearing +02
Exceptional Night Vision (better than Human Night Vision advantage,
+15)
Toughness +10
Disease Resistance +05
Fit +05
Temp Resistance +03
Extended Lifespan +25
Svarta do _not_ possess vision that goes any deeper into the infra-red
wavelengths than Human vision. They _do_ possess extremely effective
Night Vision, superior to the best Human eyes. They do require _some_
light to see, of course, in total darkness Svarta are unable to see at
all. However, Svarta see as well in starlight as most Humans do in
moderate moonlight.
Disease resistance in Svarta derives from their tendency to live in
close quarters, usually underground, over multiple generations,
disease resistance became a _very_ useful adaptation under those
conditions.
Svarta also suffer the following _innate_ racial disadvantages:
Weakness (sunlight) -20
Prone to addiction -05
Stubbornness -05
Mild Agoraphobia -05
Reproductive Difficulty -10
Intolerance -15
Bad Temper -10
The Intolerance is of 'outsiders' generally.
Svarta are instinctively distrustful of other Svarta of _other tribes
(or social groups), they don't organize well above the clan/extended
family/tribe level. Svarta go to war on each other, everything else
being equal, more easily than _H. sapiens_ do. They actually get
along slightly better with other Homosentient species. _Within_ their
family/tribal associations (which can vary considerably from culture
to culture) they are intensely loyal, 'clannish' in both the good and
the bad sense.
Typically, a Svarta will react to familiar 'outsider' Svarta at -2,
unfamiliar 'outsider' Svarta at -3, familiar Humans at -1, and
unfamiliar Humans at -2. Note that these are 'typical' reactions,
exceptions exist and xenophiliac Svarta do exist, they are just rare.
Very rare.
Svarta average short-tempered, the exception being when they are at
home with familiar clan members. Again, exceptions exist, but Svarta
tend to be antisocial by Human standards.
The reproductive difficulty of the Svarta is actually the bane of the
entire genus Homo, in various forms, _H. sapiens_ is the exception on
that score. Svarta tend toward single births, gestation lasts 12
months, miscarriages are common, childhood is long and libido in both
sexes averages lower than in _H. sapiens_.
The Weakness for Sunlight comes from two problems: the night-adapted
Svarts, while not quite albino, do suffer from a severe tendency
toward sunburn. Thirty minutes exposure to normal summer sunlight on
Earth will usually produce serious and painful blistering sunburn, and
they don't really 'tan' to any significant degree, so they don't build
up immunity. Also, their superbly dark-adapted eyes are painfully
susceptible to bright light, ordinary daylight on Terra gives a Svart
effectively the Bad Sight disadvantage at -10 (correctable with a good
pair of sunglasses or similar protection).
(One reason male Svarts usually do grow large beards is that this
provides some facial protection from sunburn. Female Svarts, like
most female Humans, lack beards. The Svart custom of wearing all-over
body coverings and hats, even in hot weather, noted in Human legends,
is likewise in much for protection from sunlight).
Subtle neurochemical differences between Humans and Svarta make the
Svarta more vulnerable to most forms of physical addiction, whether
from alcohol, drugs, or anything of that ilk. All Svarts are at -5 to
any effort to resist addiction, defeat it, or resist a consequence of
it.
[1] The Eldren invention is one of the key reasons for the lack of
genetic diversity in modern Earth's _H. sapiens_ population. Most of
our ancestral stock was taken off-world.
[2] Emphasis should be placed on the multiple sources of the legends
in question, the history of the world is very, very complicated.
[3] _H. sapiens_ and _H. svarta_ are _not_ cross-fertile, they don't
even produce 'mules'.
Elvis
Is this the origion of phrases like "he/she is very svart"?? Rather
than; ' he/she is very different' ??
Johnny1a
>
> - Show quoted text -
Probably not, since this is the first time I ever heard that
phrase. :lol:
The term comes from the 'Svartálfar', the 'dark elves' of Norse
mythology. Some accounts have the 'dwarves' and 'dark elves' as being
the same entities in this mythology, both derive from a common mythic
origin anyway (Ymir). (I'll have some things to say about Ymir and
Yggdrasil as time goes on, too.)
Johnny1a
> NOTE: All data to follow are based on a house-modified version of
> GURPS 3e.
>
>
> Subtle neurochemical differences between Humans and Svarta make the
> Svarta more vulnerable to most forms of physical addiction, whether
> from alcohol, drugs, or anything of that ilk. All Svarts are at -5 to
> any effort to resist addiction, defeat it, or resist a consequence of
> it.
Error: That should be '-1', not '-5'.
Jefferson
universe:
>> ( http://www.erbzine.com/mag17/1744.html )
>> ( http://www.erbzine.com/mag17/1744a.html )
>> ( http://www.erbzine.com/mag17/1744b.html )
There's just so much in these that might apply in what I call the
"Orichalcum Universe" setting. I particularly liked the idea of
coevolution of linguistic ability. I'd never thought the worlds
with multiple sapient species were particularly realistic, but
this gives a good reason for it. (That last statement doesn't
apply to the Orichalcum Universe. Johnny1a has generally been
very careful about using multiple sentient species.)
I can also see things like the Eldren accidentally introducing a
"super-predator" to a world, with the consequences described.
I do have to wonder. At the end of the "Eosia Continued" thread
it was mentioned:
> NEMESIS was right to be worried about other potential
> tool-using Solarigens, not just other Homosentients, as we
> shall see.
What genus besides Homo did Johnny1a have in mind? (Not that I
expect an immediate answer. The current threads in production
satisfy me just fine.)
Finally, Johnny1a, what's your policy on allowing other people to
play in your sandbox? I have an interesting scenario for this
universe, but won't post it if you would prefer I didn't.
--
Jefferson
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
mike
>[3] _H. sapiens_ and _H. svarta_ are _not_ cross-fertile, they don't
>even produce 'mules'.
Quibble: Doesn't that mean they should not be genus Homo?
Just curious, as the media likes to say things like "the Chinese race",
and i always understood that there was only one race of humans
on this rock.
Have i misunderstood this?
mik
Tim Little
>>[3] _H. sapiens_ and _H. svarta_ are _not_ cross-fertile, they don't
>>even produce 'mules'.
>
> Quibble: Doesn't that mean they should not be genus Homo?
Interfertility is more usually a characteristic of a species. If they
produced fertile offspring with H. sapiens, then they would almost
certainly be classified H. sapiens themselves (though very likely
H. sapiens would be then divided into two or more subspecies).
- Tim
Luke Campbell
wrote:
Although there are many cases of different species, and even different
genuses, producing fertile offspring. For example, snakes of the
genus Lampropelta, Pituophis, and Elaphe can all interbreed to produce
fertile offspring. Nevertheless, in nature these genuses and the
species therein are largely reproductively isolated from each other.
Luke
Johnny1a
Which opens the question of whether that means that the taxonomical
system needs some work. All taxonomic categories are to some extent
arbitrary, or at least subjective, it might be a nice idea if at least
the most basic component had some sort of objective definition, albeit
an imperfect one.
If you put snakes from the genera in question into the same
environment, will they interbreed voluntarily?
heroquestelf
> > genuses, producing fertile offspring. For example, snakes of the
> > genus Lampropelta, Pituophis, and Elaphe can all interbreed to produce
> > fertile offspring. Nevertheless, in nature these genuses and the
> > species therein are largely reproductively isolated from each other.
This is true. We've seen this happen in reptiles, fish, and
amphibians. However, in warm blooded animals (birds & mammals) this
becomes more and more rare. In mammals it is extrememly rare that
crossbreeds are fertile. As a general rule, a "species" is defined by
who it can and cannot breed with.
From a taxonomic point of view, as long as Homo Sapiens can breed with
other Homo Sapiens, he or she is still Homo Sapiens. There has been
talk for centuries about whether or not the Homo Sapiens species has
subspecies, but these days you are extremely likely to be labelled a
raging racist for just suggesting this on a scientific stage.
Keep in mind, that given a modern day setting; given a setting of
resonable scientific advancement, the only way you could get away with
labelling a homosapient race with anything other than Homo Sapiens
would REQUIRE the lack of interbreeding and selective fertility. Look
around you. I'm assuming you are trying to maintain that this future
is possible. Keep in mind what you'd have to do in today's day and age
in order to label a group of people as another species.
Scientifically, you would have to have a FIRM foundation to stand on.
Luke Campbell
> Which opens the question of whether that means that the taxonomical
> system needs some work. All taxonomic categories are to some extent
> arbitrary, or at least subjective, it might be a nice idea if at least
> the most basic component had some sort of objective definition, albeit
> an imperfect one.
You could go with a strict cladistic taxonomic system, you avoid the
problem, although the solution might not always agree with the common
sense notion of what we generally think of as a "kind" of animal -
critters that are generally the "same thing."
> If you put snakes from the genera in question into the same
> environment, will they interbreed voluntarily?
If the environment is a glass terrarium or "sweater box" style captive
colony, the answer is a definite yes (although there is always the
question of whether the snake-eating Lampropeltis snakes will mate
with or eat their cage-mates). In the wild, I'm not sure. Gopher
snakes (Pituophis catenifer) and California kingsnakes (Lampropeltis
getula) coexist in the same habitats in California and Oregon, and
elsewhere in the US, you have places where the ranges of these genuses
overlap, and surely rat/corn/fox snakes, king/milk snakes, and gopher/
bull/pine snakes occasionally encounter each other in the wild, but I
have not heard of anybody finding a hybrid between them in nature. It
may be that they occasionally mate, but the offspring, while still
fertile, are ill-equipped to survive in a natural environment -
perhaps they have trouble finding prey, or are easily found by
predators, or do not have the right instincts to find hibernacula in
winter, or something (although the latter problem wouldn't seem to
matter in California's central valley or southern coastal regions).
On the other hand, maybe there is a small amount of gene flow between
the genuses and species in this complex of North American constricting
colubrids.
Luke
Luke Campbell
>
> This is true. We've seen this happen in reptiles, fish, and
> amphibians. However, in warm blooded animals (birds & mammals) this
> becomes more and more rare.
The Grant's research over several decades on the finches of genus
Geospiza on Daphne Minor (an island in the Galapagos) shows that
hybridization is - while not common, at least not rare when you really
get down and start looking for it, and that interbreeding between
these various finches plays an important role in evolution.
> In mammals it is extrememly rare that
> crossbreeds are fertile.
Actually, most mammalian cross breeds I can think of other than those
among the genus Equus are fertile. Look at the trend for designer
cats, which involve breeding domestic cats with exotic wildcats such
as servals, fishing cats, or Asian leopard cats (not actual leopards,
but a species of small cat with leopard-like spots). Hybrids in the
genus Canis are also almost always fertile. Bison crossed with
domestic cattle also yield fertile offspring (the so called beefalo).
Similarly with hybrids of bottlenose dolphins and false killer
whales. The big criteria for whether hybrid offspring are fertile
seems to be whether both parents have the same number of chromosomes.
If they do, the result of their union tends to be able to produce
offspring of its own.
> As a general rule, a "species" is defined by
> who it can and cannot breed with.
There are many commonly accepted definitions of species, the closest
of which to your definition is the idea that a species is
reproductively isolated. This does not mean that it cannot breed with
other species, just that it does not tend to do so very often under
natural conditions.
Luke
Johnny1a
> On Mar 21, 10:39 pm, Johnny1a <shermanl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which opens the question of whether that means that the taxonomical
> > system needs some work. All taxonomic categories are to some extent
> > arbitrary, or at least subjective, it might be a nice idea if at least
> > the most basic component had some sort of objective definition, albeit
> > an imperfect one.
>
> You could go with a strict cladistic taxonomic system, you avoid the
> problem, although the solution might not always agree with the common
> sense notion of what we generally think of as a "kind" of animal -
> critters that are generally the "same thing."
Which is precisely what I do favor. If that means lions and tigers
are classed as subspecies of one animal, or dogs and wolves become one
species, so be it. It might indeed be a good thing, since it would
more closely reflect the actual reality of the relationships rather
than preferred human perceptions of such.
Granted there would still be fuzzy areas, species which usually can't
crossbreed but which succeed at it one in a thousand attempts or
something, but it would still be a reasonably solid anchor.
How does the current taxonomical system classify the offspring of
cross-genus hybrids?
Johnny1a
It seems to me we probably should have two categories, one for the
'genetically isolated' organisms that _can't_ crossbreed, and one for
the 'reproductively isolated' organisms who _could_ crossbreed but
usually don't, or who produce oddball results when they do, like the
lion/tiger crosses. (It seems to make a difference which parent is
which breed.)
Luke Campbell
> On Mar 22, 2:23 pm, Luke Campbell <lwc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You could go with a strict cladistic taxonomic system, you avoid the
> > problem, although the solution might not always agree with the common
> > sense notion of what we generally think of as a "kind" of animal -
> > critters that are generally the "same thing."
>
> Which is precisely what I do favor. If that means lions and tigers
> are classed as subspecies of one animal, or dogs and wolves become one
> species, so be it. It might indeed be a good thing, since it would
> more closely reflect the actual reality of the relationships rather
> than preferred human perceptions of such.
Cladistics does away with the whole idea of species. Instead of
animals of various kinds, you classify everything by descent. In
particular, the basic taxonomic group is the clade, which is defined
as all the descendants of a given ancestor.
Cladistic grouping definitely has its uses, but so does the
traditional Linnean grouping. After all, lions and tigers are two
distinct groups of animals, even if the groups get slightly fuzzy
around the edges when you consider captive ligers, and it makes sense
to have a taxonomic system that recognizes this.
> How does the current taxonomical system classify the offspring of
> cross-genus hybrids?
with an x (cross) notation, as in
Panthera leo x tigris (for ligers)
Canis lupus x familaris (for wolf-dogs)
Pituophis catenifer x Elaphe guttata (for a cross between a corn snake
and a bull snake).
Luke