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.

There might be, but I do not give a good Throne-damn. It's got fur, it's warm-blooded? It's a damn mammal, Poindexter. It's got a combination of mammalian and reptilian traits? Then it's repto-mammalian. Reptile and bird? Repto-avian.

There's all kinds of stuff you can classify things as if you just scrunch it up and try it on for size.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Kingdom is a taxonomic rank. You are completely mutilating the meaning of the word to fit your own semantic nonsense.

Yes, it is a taxonomic rank and I did not say otherwise. The definition is not "any of a kingdom", it's "any of the kingdom, Animalia". Animalia is a specific kingdom, and organisms belonging to that kingdom are animals. Organisms that do not belong to the kingdom Animalia are not animals.

 Psienesis wrote:
There might be, but I do not give a good Throne-damn. It's got fur, it's warm-blooded? It's a damn mammal, Poindexter. It's got a combination of mammalian and reptilian traits? Then it's repto-mammalian. Reptile and bird? Repto-avian.

There's all kinds of stuff you can classify things as if you just scrunch it up and try it on for size.

So your argument is essentially "that's nerdy, screw the definitions and I'll say what I want"? I'm fine with that, just don't pretend that there's any credence to your made-up definitions like "repto-avian", or that they are anything but made-up (don't say "but Star Wars has reptomammals" unless you seriously think that Star Wars is a good example of realistic use of science in fiction - don't trivialise me by twisting this to mean that I said 40k is either, because I did not suggest that). This is exactly the same as deciding that Eldar are humans because they look an awful lot like humans. These definitions are as specific as individual species names. You can't just decide that a micro-organism is staphylococcus aureus because hey, they're both microscopic! You can't just decide that an entirely unrelated flying creature that happens to look a lot like a hawk is a hawk on the basis that being correct with definitions is "semantic nonsense" or "nerdy". How about I decide that a Leman Russ is very obviously in fact a FV4034 Challenger II? They're both tanks, which obviously means they're the same thing. Or how about I decide that hydrogen and helium are identical because they look identical? Obviously because they are both colourless gases that are lighter than air, they share every trait in common and are equally inflammable and perform all the same chemical reactions.

I would greatly appreciate it if everyone could remain civil during this discussion, and not resort to outright insulting anyone because of a disagreement. It is unwarranted.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Kingdom is a taxonomic rank. You are completely mutilating the meaning of the word to fit your own semantic nonsense.

Yes, it is a taxonomic rank and I did not say otherwise. The definition is not "any of a kingdom", it's "any of the kingdom, Animalia". Animalia is a specific kingdom, and organisms belonging to that kingdom are animals. Organisms that do not belong to the kingdom Animalia are not animals.

 Psienesis wrote:
There might be, but I do not give a good Throne-damn. It's got fur, it's warm-blooded? It's a damn mammal, Poindexter. It's got a combination of mammalian and reptilian traits? Then it's repto-mammalian. Reptile and bird? Repto-avian.

There's all kinds of stuff you can classify things as if you just scrunch it up and try it on for size.

So your argument is essentially "that's nerdy, screw the definitions and I'll say what I want"? I'm fine with that, just don't pretend that there's any credence to your made-up definitions like "repto-avian", or that they are anything but made-up (don't say "but Star Wars has reptomammals" unless you seriously think that Star Wars is a good example of realistic use of science in fiction - don't trivialise me by twisting this to mean that I said 40k is either, because I did not suggest that). This is exactly the same as deciding that Eldar are humans because they look an awful lot like humans. These definitions are as specific as individual species names. You can't just decide that a micro-organism is staphylococcus aureus because hey, they're both microscopic! You can't just decide that an entirely unrelated flying creature that happens to look a lot like a hawk is a hawk on the basis that being correct with definitions is "semantic nonsense" or "nerdy". How about I decide that a Leman Russ is very obviously in fact a FV4034 Challenger II? They're both tanks, which obviously means they're the same thing. Or how about I decide that hydrogen and helium are identical because they look identical? Obviously because they are both colourless gases that are lighter than air, they share every trait in common and are equally inflammable and perform all the same chemical reactions.

I would greatly appreciate it if everyone could remain civil during this discussion, and not resort to outright insulting anyone because of a disagreement. It is unwarranted.

You need to realize that to be in the kingdom Animalia all you have to do is meet these criteria:
*Multicellular (metazoans) and eukaryotic: Check
*Ingestive heterotrophs: Check
*Have some type of skeletal support: Check
*Show levels of organization including cell, tissue, organ, and system: Check
*Cells are specialized for particular functions: Check
*Reproduce sexually: Check

By your augment "organisms belonging to that kingdom are animals" is ridiculous because they meet the criteria. They are in the kingdom animalia. Thus, they are animals.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Kingdom is a taxonomic rank. You are completely mutilating the meaning of the word to fit your own semantic nonsense.

Yes, it is a taxonomic rank and I did not say otherwise. The definition is not "any of a kingdom", it's "any of the kingdom, Animalia". Animalia is a specific kingdom, and organisms belonging to that kingdom are animals. Organisms that do not belong to the kingdom Animalia are not animals..

Organisms that match the criteria of the kingdom animalia are of the kingdom animalia. That's the whole point of the existence of the word in the first place.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Kingdom is a taxonomic rank. You are completely mutilating the meaning of the word to fit your own semantic nonsense.

Yes, it is a taxonomic rank and I did not say otherwise. The definition is not "any of a kingdom", it's "any of the kingdom, Animalia". Animalia is a specific kingdom, and organisms belonging to that kingdom are animals. Organisms that do not belong to the kingdom Animalia are not animals.

 Psienesis wrote:
There might be, but I do not give a good Throne-damn. It's got fur, it's warm-blooded? It's a damn mammal, Poindexter. It's got a combination of mammalian and reptilian traits? Then it's repto-mammalian. Reptile and bird? Repto-avian.

There's all kinds of stuff you can classify things as if you just scrunch it up and try it on for size.

So your argument is essentially "that's nerdy, screw the definitions and I'll say what I want"? I'm fine with that, just don't pretend that there's any credence to your made-up definitions like "repto-avian", or that they are anything but made-up (don't say "but Star Wars has reptomammals" unless you seriously think that Star Wars is a good example of realistic use of science in fiction - don't trivialise me by twisting this to mean that I said 40k is either, because I did not suggest that). This is exactly the same as deciding that Eldar are humans because they look an awful lot like humans. These definitions are as specific as individual species names. You can't just decide that a micro-organism is staphylococcus aureus because hey, they're both microscopic! You can't just decide that an entirely unrelated flying creature that happens to look a lot like a hawk is a hawk on the basis that being correct with definitions is "semantic nonsense" or "nerdy". How about I decide that a Leman Russ is very obviously in fact a FV4034 Challenger II? They're both tanks, which obviously means they're the same thing. Or how about I decide that hydrogen and helium are identical because they look identical? Obviously because they are both colourless gases that are lighter than air, they share every trait in common and are equally inflammable and perform all the same chemical reactions.

I would greatly appreciate it if everyone could remain civil during this discussion, and not resort to outright insulting anyone because of a disagreement. It is unwarranted.

I'm not looking for anything with even a passing resemblance to scientific accuracy in a discussion of the background and setting of Warhammer 40,000. This is fluff written by people who aren't scientists for people who aren't scientists. It got hair? It's a mammal. It got scales? It's a reptile. It got... bug bits? It's an insect. It got scales and live in water? It's a fish (ichthian). It got feathers? It's an avian. It got a mix of these things? Then mix those names up and smash 'em together, as appropriate, because this is 40K.

Eldar are not humans because they're Eldar, but both are mammals and both are humanoids. There's a degree of specificity that is getting involved when you call Eldar Humans, just because they look like them (Humans being a specific species), rather than applying the broader classification of mammal/reptile/insectoid.

Except it's not a checklist. You don't just throw things into a taxonomic rank of any level because they meet some (or even all) "criteria". It's a strict classification of relation. That's why they threw out the classifications that worked the way yours does when genetics was discovered. Before then, people could just make baseless claims like "giraffes are yellow, cheetahs are yellow, obviously they are related!". It was discovered that things thought related weren't at all, which marked a huge shift in how life was classified. It was no longer acceptable to just roughly estimate that something was related to something else because of its morphology. Taxa removed in this way include Sauriurae (birds with lizard-tails, which are not separate from birds), Vermes (non-arthropod invertebrates, which is a diverse group of organisms that aren't related), and Pachydermata (again, unrelated organisms grouped on similar traits and not any kind of genetic relation).

Aristotle wrote:Birds in a way resemble fishes. For birds have their wings in the upper part of their bodies, and fishes have two fins in the front part of their bodies. Birds have feet on their under part, and most fishes have a second pair of fins in their under part…

Also, according to your magical definition;

*Jellyfish, earthworms, squids, aren't animals, as they lack any kind of skeletal support
*Animals that reproduce through parthenogenesis are not animals, as they do not reproduce sexually

How is it ridiculous? You're suggesting that it would be totally viable to say "has fur, has two eyes, two ears, is roughly dog-shaped... obviously it must be a canid", rather than determine their relation through any sort of genetic study. How do you think anyone ever determines what species a given bacterium is, or distinguishes it from another beyond the four shapes they tend to take? There are certainly more than four species of bacteria. You're making these huge backwards logic leaps, a bit like this:

Have very dark skin
+Are human
= Are African

Which, you know, completely ignores the existence of Jamaicans.

EDIT: Psienesis - that is fine, if you want to do that and aren't going to suggest that it carries any sort of technical or scientific weight (which you just said you didn't, so). My issue is with TiamatRoar and Co'tor, who keep saying these silly things!

Sure you can. Giraffes and cheetahs are related: They're both mammals.

That's it. Stop there. Don't dig any deeper.

Frozen,are you of the belief* that you have to be descended from the same lineage to be a part of the particular taxonomic rank to be a part of the group? That could explain the differences in what we believe to be true.
*not the best word, but I'm blanking on the right one currently.

Also: I created a thread for this so this can be argued without taking away from the original thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/583481.page

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
Kingdom is a taxonomic rank. You are completely mutilating the meaning of the word to fit your own semantic nonsense.

Yes, it is a taxonomic rank and I did not say otherwise. The definition is not "any of a kingdom", it's "any of the kingdom, Animalia". Animalia is a specific kingdom, and organisms belonging to that kingdom are animals. Organisms that do not belong to the kingdom Animalia are not animals.

 Psienesis wrote:
There might be, but I do not give a good Throne-damn. It's got fur, it's warm-blooded? It's a damn mammal, Poindexter. It's got a combination of mammalian and reptilian traits? Then it's repto-mammalian. Reptile and bird? Repto-avian.

There's all kinds of stuff you can classify things as if you just scrunch it up and try it on for size.

So your argument is essentially "that's nerdy, screw the definitions and I'll say what I want"? I'm fine with that, just don't pretend that there's any credence to your made-up definitions like "repto-avian", or that they are anything but made-up (don't say "but Star Wars has reptomammals" unless you seriously think that Star Wars is a good example of realistic use of science in fiction - don't trivialise me by twisting this to mean that I said 40k is either, because I did not suggest that). This is exactly the same as deciding that Eldar are humans because they look an awful lot like humans. These definitions are as specific as individual species names. You can't just decide that a micro-organism is staphylococcus aureus because hey, they're both microscopic! You can't just decide that an entirely unrelated flying creature that happens to look a lot like a hawk is a hawk on the basis that being correct with definitions is "semantic nonsense" or "nerdy". How about I decide that a Leman Russ is very obviously in fact a FV4034 Challenger II? They're both tanks, which obviously means they're the same thing. Or how about I decide that hydrogen and helium are identical because they look identical? Obviously because they are both colourless gases that are lighter than air, they share every trait in common and are equally inflammable and perform all the same chemical reactions.

I would greatly appreciate it if everyone could remain civil during this discussion, and not resort to outright insulting anyone because of a disagreement. It is unwarranted.

Uh, reptomammals were real, albeit a long, long time ago. Although their correct name was "Synapsid".

I THINK TAU EAT FISH!

*cough, hack*

Because fish are tasty, and they have a fish theme, and they're blue. Or something.

Actually, no, I think that fish are the favoured food of Air Tau because they lack the physical power to hunt landwalking prey, but as a flier it's much easier to catch fish by diving into the water from above like a Cormorant than it is a worthwhile-sized land animal - a Tau's not going to get much sustenance from a mouse, and rabbits are much harder to spear than trout. Not that we're literally talking about trout and rabbits, but the T'au equivalent species.

One last reply on the matter:

Co'tor Shas wrote:Frozen,are you of the belief* that you have to be descended from the same lineage to be a part of the particular taxonomic rank to be a part of the group? That could explain the differences in what we believe to be true.
*not the best word, but I'm blanking on the right one currently.

Also: I created a thread for this so this can be argued without taking away from the original thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/583481.page

Pretty much, yes. Taxonomic ranks exist to estimate as closely as possible the relation between all living things. All species of trout are more related to each other than to, say, flamingoes, and hence they are grouped together and far from flamingoes. That doesn't mean they're not related to flamingoes at all, though. The order Carnivora is not "the group that we label all flesh-eating mammals with", but "the mammal lineage characterised by flesh-eating". Bears and cats are ursids and felids respectively. Bears are not felids, and cats are not ursids - not because of their physical traits, but because of their genetic relation to their respective families. If we were to discover an animal that was extremely cat-like in every way, we might term it part of Felidae at first sight - but in later study, discovering its close genetic relation to dogs instead would put it in Canidae.

Wyzilla wrote:
Uh, reptomammals were real, albeit a long, long time ago. Although their correct name was "Synapsid".

Spoiler:

Except synapsids are not "reptomammals". They're mammals and very close relatives to mammals. Yes, they have traditionally reptilian traits, but as I have been arguing this whole time, that means nothing. Furthermore, "reptile", "mammal", "bird", "insect", "fish", etc are not immutable qualities of life that all non-plant macroscopic things must fit in to. There was a time in Earth's ancient past where there were none of these things. Archeopteryx, according to your logic, is a "repto-avian". It is not. It is a transitional bird species, part of the evolutionary path to birds from feathered dinosaurs. Feathered dinosaurs were not "repto-avians" any more than they were mammals. Dinosaurs in general scarcely fit the supposed definition of "reptile", possessing many traits that are distinctly un-reptile by this standard. As I have said in the other thread, I'm going to stop now (this is getting silly, and I apologise to the OP for ruining this thread with biology stuff).

I think it's safe to say that Tau have an obsession with fish, provided we assume that their vehicle classifications are somehow translated (the problem with "it's Imperial" is that hardly anyone knows anything about pre-Imperial Terra, much less what the animals were called).

EDIT: That could be true evolutionarily, but Air Caste could enjoy any meal they wanted in the modern age of technology. I just ate a chicken sandwich and I didn't have to go kill a chicken, you know. Ireland isn't that bad.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
One last reply on the matter:

Co'tor Shas wrote:Frozen,are you of the belief* that you have to be descended from the same lineage to be a part of the particular taxonomic rank to be a part of the group? That could explain the differences in what we believe to be true.
*not the best word, but I'm blanking on the right one currently.

Also: I created a thread for this so this can be argued without taking away from the original thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/583481.page

Pretty much, yes. Taxonomic ranks exist to estimate as closely as possible the relation between all living things. All species of trout are more related to each other than to, say, flamingoes, and hence they are grouped together and far from flamingoes. That doesn't mean they're not related to flamingoes at all, though. The order Carnivora is not "the group that we label all flesh-eating mammals with", but "the mammal lineage characterised by flesh-eating". Bears and cats are ursids and felids respectively. Bears are not felids, and cats are not ursids - not because of their physical traits, but because of their genetic relation to their respective families. If we were to discover an animal that was extremely cat-like in every way, we might term it part of Felidae at first sight - but in later study, discovering its close genetic relation to dogs instead would put it in Canidae.

Wyzilla wrote:
Uh, reptomammals were real, albeit a long, long time ago. Although their correct name was "Synapsid".

Spoiler:

Except synapsids are not "reptomammals". They're mammals and very close relatives to mammals. Yes, they have traditionally reptilian traits, but as I have been arguing this whole time, that means nothing. Furthermore, "reptile", "mammal", "bird", "insect", "fish", etc are not immutable qualities of life that all non-plant macroscopic things must fit in to. There was a time in Earth's ancient past where there were none of these things. Archeopteryx, according to your logic, is a "repto-avian". It is not. It is a transitional bird species, part of the evolutionary path to birds from feathered dinosaurs. Feathered dinosaurs were not "repto-avians" any more than they were mammals. Dinosaurs in general scarcely fit the supposed definition of "reptile", possessing many traits that are distinctly un-reptile by this standard. As I have said in the other thread, I'm going to stop now (this is getting silly, and I apologise to the OP for ruining this thread with biology stuff).

I think it's safe to say that Tau have an obsession with fish, provided we assume that their vehicle classifications are somehow translated (the problem with "it's Imperial" is that hardly anyone knows anything about pre-Imperial Terra, much less what the animals were called).

EDIT: That could be true evolutionarily, but Air Caste could enjoy any meal they wanted in the modern age of technology. I just ate a chicken sandwich and I didn't have to go kill a chicken, you know. Ireland isn't that bad.

Eh, the taxonomy of birds is a bit of a tricky issue still, considering the system on a whole is fairly archaic. While I'd normally lean to aves remaining a separate class, I've just always felt that Theropods ought to be removed entirely from Reptilia and moved into Aves, due to their distinctness from all other reptiles, and bearing more traits in common with birds. Or roll all dinosaurs into their own separate clade, considering it's likely most of them were "warm blooded". They just bear little similarity to what we in the modern day describe as reptilian and reptilian traits.

And my point was that "reptomammals" or those that exhibit traits of both mammals and reptiles are not science fiction, but a large part of prehistoric history. While the Rancor may be fictional, it's biology should be similar to Synapsids, being a warm blooded animal that meanwhile has splayed legs (or at least I think so, don't know if we've ever seen a Rancor skeleton).

It should be noted that the Rancor was a cross between a lizard, a spider, a crab and a potato.

 Psienesis wrote:
It should be noted that the Rancor was a cross between a lizard, a spider, a crab and a potato.

No, it's the Sarlaccs that look like a forgotten potato. IIRC, Rancors were designed as a reptilian gorilla or something of the type.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rancor

Skip down to the "Behind the scenes" bit, though here it is quoted as "a bear and a potato", but is classified as a crustacean/arachnid hybrid in SWG.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Except synapsids are not "reptomammals". They're mammals and very close relatives to mammals. Yes, they have traditionally reptilian traits, but as I have been arguing this whole time, that means nothing. Furthermore, "reptile", "mammal", "bird", "insect", "fish", etc are not immutable qualities of life that all non-plant macroscopic things must fit in to. There was a time in Earth's ancient past where there were none of these things. Archeopteryx, according to your logic, is a "repto-avian". It is not. It is a transitional bird species, part of the evolutionary path to birds from feathered dinosaurs. Feathered dinosaurs were not "repto-avians" any more than they were mammals. Dinosaurs in general scarcely fit the supposed definition of "reptile", possessing many traits that are distinctly un-reptile by this standard. As I have said in the other thread, I'm going to stop now (this is getting silly, and I apologise to the OP for ruining this thread with biology stuff).

Just minor point - isn't mammals part of therapsids who are part of synapsids? And there's still discussion "must we call birds "dinosaurs" (they're maniraptors line after all, no matter how distant MRCA were)?". So human eating chicken sandwich can be therapsid eating dinosaur or synapsid consuming diapsid or...let's not go deeper ^_^

chyron wrote:

Just minor point - isn't mammals part of therapsids who are part of synapsids? And there's still discussion "must we call birds "dinosaurs" (they're maniraptors line after all, no matter how distant MRCA were)?". So human eating chicken sandwich can be therapsid eating dinosaur or synapsid consuming diapsid or...let's not go deeper ^_^

Yes? I don't get your point, here. They're still not "reptomammals". Wyzilla brought them up to prove the existence of "repto-mammals", despite such a thing not existing. The intricacies of their precise genetic relation aren't the topic at hand, here, rather the whole "is something in a taxonomic rank because of its genes or just because someone felt like putting it there".

Everyone still talking (or just interested) about genetics: please move to the thread made for the purpose.

Your daemon might also have some interesting ideas about where Tau nervous systems are particularly sensitive, I postulate that they're very ticklish between the hooves... Also, your advisor might have information on what a Tau tastes like (probably chicken)

Oooh... I like that idea. The scenario has developed a bit further. The post-apocalypse planet the game is set on is kind of getting its collective ass kicked by Chaos, and so the Radical is trying to get the Tau involved to help even the odds...

... this could lead to some interesting interactions between Radical, her Daemonic Familiar, and the Water Caste Ambassador she's been dealing with, or his cadre of Fire Warrior bodyguards. Hmm...

And, though a reference to a completely different game, the chicken comment makes me think of this:

Hmmm... I wonder what effects Tau flesh would have? maybe a BS skill boost?
(Or a WS debuff )

That would imply that Tau somehow have ballistic skill...

Lets face it: Part of the Tau's whole theme is "weak biology supported by high technology". Just like the Necrons...

Well, TBF, tau ballistic skill is probably somewhere around 3.5, not as good as a space marine but better than guardsmen because of life to death training and suchlike.

Yes, but the supposed fluff reason for their poor close-combat ability is because their lack of dilating irises affects their depth perception.

Even though depth perception is just as important when shooting as when dodging a punch, and irises have nothing to do with depth perception (that's a result of bifocal vision, with the Tau do have).

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Yes, but the supposed fluff reason for their poor close-combat ability is because their lack of dilating irises affects their depth perception.

Even though depth perception is just as important when shooting as when dodging a punch, and irises have nothing to do with depth perception (that's a result of bifocal vision, with the Tau do have).

I always just though that most of their muscles and energy was directed to their legs, as the Tau are clearly built for speed with hooves or some efficiency to be gained from it. Terrible upper arm strength, fantastic leg strength.

They also don't train for CC so it would make sense that they are bad at it.

I can see that getting a hoof in the daddybags might be a really terrible thing to happen...

Hmm...

Someone in my DH group is getting kicked in the jimmy by a Tau. That's it. It's going to happen.

That sounds like a great idea - especially if they're relying on the Tau being poor in melee, and become overconfident... then *WHAM*, right in the 'nads.

And we thought tau were bad a melee...

There's a particular assassin that it would be funny on, as well as a Tech-Priest who thinks he is the Omnissiah's gift to close-quarters combat...