Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Point me to a true reptile that has hair.

I'll point you to Xenology where it states that Tau, other then some oddities, are for all intents and purposes, mammals.

(Indeed the Admech dissecting questions how something so close to human can arise from parallel evolution.)

Personally, I suppose from a breeding program/genetic engineering perspective, it all depends on how self sufficient you prefer your troops and if you don't mind being shackled to high tech medical facilities. Bluntly though, it's more cost effective to have them easily breed and develop on their own. You can create the perfect soldier, but you have better be prepared to grow them in tanks because reproduction is a waste of energy if you follow that philosophy.

Ideally they would be able to give birth while in actual combat, and have their offspring instantly as lethal as the parent, but we're heading deep into tyrannid territory now.

Psienesis wrote:Point me to a true reptile that has hair.

I can point you too a mammal that lays eggs...

purplefood wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Point me to a true reptile that has hair.

I can point you too a mammal that lays eggs...

That mammal still has hair, and still breeds sexually. It just doesn't give birth to live young. The Tau, for all we know, may be egg-laying mammals. That's perfectly acceptable. They may even be sexually-reproducing, egg-laying mammals with breast-bearing females who feed their young after they hatch.

We just don't know.

Psienesis wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Point me to a true reptile that has hair.

I can point you too a mammal that lays eggs...

That mammal still has hair, and still breeds sexually. It just doesn't give birth to live young. The Tau, for all we know, may be egg-laying mammals. That's perfectly acceptable. They may even be sexually-reproducing, egg-laying mammals with breast-bearing females who feed their young after they hatch.

We just don't know.

Reptiles breed sexually...
Why did you bring them up?

Hmm... it's tough, with so little data. The Tau supposedly evolved from grazing animals, which would, in theory, rule out egg laying (since grazers have to keep on the move otherwise they overgraze, eggs requiring them to stay handy as Tau are social creatures)

And, before this get pointed out, yes, dinosaurs had grazers, but we also know even less about many dinosaurs then we do about Tau. Dinosaurs were extremely small compared to the adults, and most likely had a fairly short incubation period.

How do you think that women is respected in the Imperial Guard?

Brother Coa wrote:How do you think that women is respected in the Imperial Guard?

Same way everyone is respected in the Guard. Commissar says so.

Psienesis wrote:Point me to a true reptile that has hair.

Mammals, reptiles, birds, insects (they have hair like structures), fish, amphibians, crustation (they have hair like structures) and plants (they also have hair like structures)all breed SEXUALLY. your point fall flat on its arse when you don't understand what sexual reproduction actually is. All animals and most plant have male or female (and sometimes both) parts.

What is the actual point you are trying to make?

BaronIveagh wrote:I'll point you to Xenology where it states that Tau, other then some oddities, are for all intents and purposes, mammals.

It also shows that Tau have human feet and is depicted as the case notes of a man gone mad, so is not actually very reliable. it could be a case of an imperial freakshow like that of historical taxidermists that used their skill to make 'real' mermaids, sea monsters and other such oddities, but we will never know (knowing GW).

purplefood wrote:

Psienesis wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Point me to a true reptile that has hair.

I can point you too a mammal that lays eggs...

That mammal still has hair, and still breeds sexually. It just doesn't give birth to live young. The Tau, for all we know, may be egg-laying mammals. That's perfectly acceptable. They may even be sexually-reproducing, egg-laying mammals with breast-bearing females who feed their young after they hatch.

We just don't know.

Reptiles breed sexually...
Why did you bring them up?

Because the argument was that Tau don't have breasts or, indeed, other gender-identifying physical features, and was taken a point further to state that "having hair [is] not just a thing for mammals". I posited that, because Tau are pictured with hair, and given their activity cycles, that they are, indeed, mammals. Given that basis, it is likely that Tau possess some sort of secondary sexual characteristics. Given that likelihood, breasts seem to be the most logical development, in addition to any other oddities associated with their xeno physiology, like head-crests or skull-knobs or what-have-you. I posit the presence of breasts in adult Tau females because, if they are a mammalian race, they most probably breed sexually and, like most other mammals, nurse their young.

I then asked for an example of a hair-bearing reptile, which brought the platypus into the topic, somehow, as an egg-laying mammal (not a fur-bearing reptile), which I further commented as being a possibility for Tau (egg-laying mammals), though not a certainty or even a "most likely possible" scenario.

Yes, reptiles breed sexually and lay eggs. That doesn't have anything to do with the point of Tau being a) Mammals and, b) possessing gender-defining characteristics as we, as humans, would understand them.

Psienesis wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Psienesis wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Psienesis wrote:Point me to a true reptile that has hair.

I can point you too a mammal that lays eggs...

That mammal still has hair, and still breeds sexually. It just doesn't give birth to live young. The Tau, for all we know, may be egg-laying mammals. That's perfectly acceptable. They may even be sexually-reproducing, egg-laying mammals with breast-bearing females who feed their young after they hatch.

We just don't know.

Reptiles breed sexually...
Why did you bring them up?

Because the argument was that Tau don't have breasts or, indeed, other gender-identifying physical features, and was taken a point further to state that "having hair [is] not just a thing for mammals". I posited that, because Tau are pictured with hair, and given their activity cycles, that they are, indeed, mammals. Given that basis, it is likely that Tau possess some sort of secondary sexual characteristics. Given that likelihood, breasts seem to be the most logical development, in addition to any other oddities associated with their xeno physiology, like head-crests or skull-knobs or what-have-you. I posit the presence of breasts in adult Tau females because, if they are a mammalian race, they most probably breed sexually and, like most other mammals, nurse their young.

I then asked for an example of a hair-bearing reptile, which brought the platypus into the topic, somehow, as an egg-laying mammal (not a fur-bearing reptile), which I further commented as being a possibility for Tau (egg-laying mammals), though not a certainty or even a "most likely possible" scenario.

Yes, reptiles breed sexually and lay eggs. That doesn't have anything to do with the point of Tau being a) Mammals and, b) possessing gender-defining characteristics as we, as humans, would understand them.

So the reptiles thing didn't mean anything...
As far as i can tell it makes no sense whatsoever...
Most, if not all, highly and even lesser evolved organisms have secondary sexual characteristics.
Tau might nurse their young differently from other mammals. They might do it like birds do or maybe they have a more discreet method from humans.

purplefood wrote:So the reptiles thing didn't mean anything...
As far as i can tell it makes no sense whatsoever...
Most, if not all, highly and even lesser evolved organisms have secondary sexual characteristics.

Yes, indeed they might, which is what I've been saying all along. There is,as mentioned up-thread, suggestions that a human (at least a Space Marine) can tell the difference between a male and female Tau at a glance. I assume this is because Tau females have boobs and Tau males don't. Or perhaps the opposite is true, and we've been assuming the entirely wrong thing about Fire Warriors up to this point? Doesn't matter... point is, I'm with the camp that believes Tau females look, well, female. In some manner.

Psienesis wrote:

purplefood wrote:So the reptiles thing didn't mean anything...
As far as i can tell it makes no sense whatsoever...
Most, if not all, highly and even lesser evolved organisms have secondary sexual characteristics.

Yes, indeed they might, which is what I've been saying all along. There is,as mentioned up-thread, suggestions that a human (at least a Space Marine) can tell the difference between a male and female Tau at a glance. I assume this is because Tau females have boobs and Tau males don't. Or perhaps the opposite is true, and we've been assuming the entirely wrong thing about Fire Warriors up to this point? Doesn't matter... point is, I'm with the camp that believes Tau females look, well, female. In some manner.

It is probably due to a different facial structure.
Evolving under a different set of pressures and with a different genetic structure, from humans they would have different secondary characteristics.

Psienesis wrote:Because the argument was that Tau don't have breasts or, indeed, other gender-identifying physical features, and was taken a point further to state that "having hair [is] not just a thing for mammals". I posited that, because Tau are pictured with hair, and given their activity cycles, that they are, indeed, mammals. Given that basis, it is likely that Tau possess some sort of secondary sexual characteristics. Given that likelihood, breasts seem to be the most logical development, in addition to any other oddities associated with their xeno physiology, like head-crests or skull-knobs or what-have-you. I posit the presence of breasts in adult Tau females because, if they are a mammalian race, they most probably breed sexually and, like most other mammals, nurse their young.

Humans are the only mammals wherein females have enlarged breasts when not lactating. Even other apes don't. If Tau females are ever formally depicted with breasts, the primary motivation would be fanservice, not some more universal property. As alien as Tau are deliberately depicted as being, I find it difficult to believe that anyone trying to preserve that would decide to make them more human in appearance.

Tau would have secondary sexual characteristics, but they would not have human ones.

Humans are also the only species we know of, IRL, that have technology, civilization and culture. We developed differently than other primates, sure... but this same template cannot be said to be true of all other, as-yet-undiscovered and unknown, alien races.

Eldar females have breasts. Dark Eldar females, too, being a cultural off-shoot of the baseline Eldar. This is not "fan-service", it's just the way their race developed in the course of its evolution, and an accepted fact of their race. Yet... they are also extremely alien in mindset, behavior and temperament.

Why could the Tau not also have similar physical features? I don't see this possibility as being "fan-service" automatically, I see it more as a physical development along evolutionary lines in hand with the evolution of their culture. Animals have the benefit of instinctive breeding cycles... they know (through pheromones as well as a host of other things) when females of their kind are ready and capable of breeding. Humans have the mark of puberty to denote this, and are then able to breed at any time. Why not the Tau as well?

Psienesis wrote:Humans are also the only species we know of, IRL, that have technology, civilization and culture. We developed differently than other primates, sure... but this same template cannot be said to be true of all other, as-yet-undiscovered and unknown, alien races.

Eldar females have breasts. Dark Eldar females, too, being a cultural off-shoot of the baseline Eldar. This is not "fan-service", it's just the way their race developed in the course of its evolution, and an accepted fact of their race. Yet... they are also extremely alien in mindset, behavior and temperament.

Why could the Tau not also have similar physical features? I don't see this possibility as being "fan-service" automatically, I see it more as a physical development along evolutionary lines in hand with the evolution of their culture. Animals have the benefit of instinctive breeding cycles... they know (through pheromones as well as a host of other things) when females of their kind are ready and capable of breeding. Humans have the mark of puberty to denote this, and are then able to breed at any time. Why not the Tau as well?

Both Eldar and Humans were made by the Old Ones however...
Tau were not.
At any rate they may develope whatever these characterisitics are during pregnancy.

BluntmanDC wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:I'll point you to Xenology where it states that Tau, other then some oddities, are for all intents and purposes, mammals.

It also shows that Tau have human feet and is depicted as the case notes of a man gone mad, so is not actually very reliable. it could be a case of an imperial freakshow like that of historical taxidermists that used their skill to make 'real' mermaids, sea monsters and other such oddities, but we will never know (knowing GW).

I'm kind of torn on the whole issue of the 'hooves'.

Because it's very clearly an Ethereal(female actually) that was dissected. The 'human feet' thing seems more like it is the result of it being splayed on a dissection table.

purplefood wrote:
Both Eldar and Humans were made by the Old Ones however...
Tau were not.
At any rate they may develope whatever these characterisitics are during pregnancy.

Um, I was under the impression humans were not produced by the Old Ones, which is why Eldar sneer at them so much?


On Bored, Blue, and Buxom (and yes, I just thought of that name for a Tau yuri hentai off the top of my head): Unfortunately, Tau females are not really depicted at all, and the two 'official' versions differ wildly. I'll choose to interpret the mad magos commentary that they're, with a few salient differences, morphologically more similar then not to extend to any thing he didn't note as a difference.

BaronIveagh wrote:

purplefood wrote:
Both Eldar and Humans were made by the Old Ones however...
Tau were not.
At any rate they may develope whatever these characterisitics are during pregnancy.

Um, I was under the impression humans were not produced by the Old Ones, which is why Eldar sneer at them so much?


On Bored, Blue, and Buxom (and yes, I just thought of that name for a Tau yuri hentai off the top of my head): Unfortunately, Tau females are not really depicted at all, and the two 'official' versions differ wildly. I'll choose to interpret the mad magos commentary that they're, with a few salient differences, morphologically more similar then not to extend to any thing he didn't note as a difference.

IIRC Humans were supposed to be a trade off between Eldar specialisation and Ork numbers and inherent talent for warfare. That might be why they look down on Humans since they are essentially mocking Eldar as a species, but also Eldar were incredibly powerful at one point.

purplefood wrote:
IIRC Humans were supposed to be a trade off between Eldar specialisation and Ork numbers and inherent talent for warfare. That might be why they look down on Humans since they are essentially mocking Eldar as a species, but also Eldar were incredibly powerful at one point.

That doesn't make any sense, since Orks and Eldar were created 65 million years before humans, during the war between the C'tan and the Old Ones. Which ended long before humanity appeared.

BaronIveagh wrote:

purplefood wrote:
IIRC Humans were supposed to be a trade off between Eldar specialisation and Ork numbers and inherent talent for warfare. That might be why they look down on Humans since they are essentially mocking Eldar as a species, but also Eldar were incredibly powerful at one point.

That doesn't make any sense, since Orks and Eldar were created 65 million years before humans, during the war between the C'tan and the Old Ones. Which ended long before humanity appeared.

Supposedly the humans were a kinda of new idea rather than an actual fighting force. The war had raged for a while already and i suppose the Old Ones would have hurried it along. The source may have been outdated but i can't find it again which is annoying since it was interesting...

purplefood wrote:
Supposedly the humans were a kinda of new idea rather than an actual fighting force. The war had raged for a while already and i suppose the Old Ones would have hurried it along. The source may have been outdated but i can't find it again which is annoying since it was interesting...

Ok, since Codex: Necrons (3rd) states that Eldar, orks and jokero were made (among others), the old ones died out, and then 60 million years later, humanity comes along.

BaronIveagh wrote:

purplefood wrote:
Supposedly the humans were a kinda of new idea rather than an actual fighting force. The war had raged for a while already and i suppose the Old Ones would have hurried it along. The source may have been outdated but i can't find it again which is annoying since it was interesting...

Ok, since Codex: Necrons (3rd) states that Eldar, orks and jokero were made (among others), the old ones died out, and then 60 million years later, humanity comes along.

Supposedly the genes the Old Ones used were predisposed to stay the hell alive, i assume they ended up in humanity or the ancestors of them.

I don't think the involvement of the Old Ones really enters into the picture. Some of the races created by the Old Ones share physical similarities (Human/Eldar) while others (Human/K'nib) do not.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the Old Ones created Humans and Eldar and not Tau, or not, because that doesn't alter the possibility that Tau do or do not have breasts and other mammalian humanoid features. The marks of the Old One's influence in the evolution of your species is not the presence of a great rack, nor is the absence thereof a sign that your race was not altered by the Old Ones.

It makes it more plausible that they have a much more different way of doing things than humans do.

Psienesis wrote:I don't think the involvement of the Old Ones really enters into the picture. Some of the races created by the Old Ones share physical similarities (Human/Eldar) while others (Human/K'nib) do not.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the Old Ones created Humans and Eldar and not Tau, or not, because that doesn't alter the possibility that Tau do or do not have breasts and other mammalian humanoid features. The marks of the Old One's influence in the evolution of your species is not the presence of a great rack, nor is the absence thereof a sign that your race was not altered by the Old Ones.

For some reason, and I hate to admit this, I had this mental image of a bikini clad blond with huge tracts of land posing with an elder sign tattoo on her breasts and saying 'Look, the Mark of the Old Ones!' when I read this.

Psienesis wrote:Humans are also the only species we know of, IRL, that have technology, civilization and culture. We developed differently than other primates, sure... but this same template cannot be said to be true of all other, as-yet-undiscovered and unknown, alien races.

a- humans did not evolve to fir a 'template'
b- so your whole position is that 'large breasts lead to high levels of technology'
c- culture, as it is difined is actually not a trait that only belongs to humans, primates and pack animals have cultures with complex levels of power, greeting gestures and rituals.
d- humans are not the only species on this planet that use technology, chimpanzes, bonobos and ravens all use tools

back to your old posts:

a- although tau have 'hair' this might not be the same type of material that is mammalian hair, many structures exist in the natural world that look like hair but are not mammalian hair.
b- breasts do not equal mammals, nearly all mammals have teats not breasts, so tau females (if they are mammal like creatures) don't need breasts to suckle their young.

BluntmanDC wrote:
b- so your whole position is that 'large breasts lead to high levels of technology'

maybe he meant this:

-bigger boobs mean more milk for kids...
-more milk means that the kids grow even more stronger and smarter...
-smarter men means more advanced tech...

So, in some strange fetish, dark, sexy reality - it's true..

Interesting idea...
Smarter men?

Brother Coa wrote:-bigger boobs mean more milk for kids...
-more milk means that the kids grow even more stronger and smarter...
-smarter men means more advanced tech...

Don't you mean smarter kids when they become adults?

A lot of the reason women haven't seemed to contribute much to human history is that in the western culture at least (in Muslim culture, for example, there were many notable female scholars during their golden age) women tended until very recently to be repressed. This is changing in modern times-- for example, the person who actually did the work and found out the shape of human DNA (the double helix) was Rosalind Franklin, with Watson and Crick simply being the ones to publish it and therefor get all the credit (which they gave her very little of, even though it was quite clear after the fact that she had basically done all of the technical and scholarly work).

Indeed, an egalitarian society such as Eldar, Tau, or Imperium would be able to produce more scientists (and similar professions) because of it not having such restrictions.