234 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadyKat]

If Captain Kirk can find a way, so can Shepard.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

newcomplex wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

madisk wrote...

PiercedMonk wrote...

madisk wrote...

Quarians are mammals. They reproduce the same way we do - Penis goes in vagina.

Quarians are not mammals. Salarians are not amphibians. Krogans are not suarians. Drell are not reptiles. Hanhar are not big stupid jellyfish. Regardless of any superficial similarities, if it doesn't come from Earth, than Earth's taxonomic classifications do not apply.

Why do they not apply? If you expand the classifications to cover biology of the entire galaxy instead of just one planet you could still apply the same terminology. 

No you couldn't, the current taxonomy system is used not only by traits and appearance, but also an assumed common ancestry. They try to label and categorize species based on what ancestor they evolved from and how closely they are related.

Because we have not yet discovered alien life lol.    

Even if we discovered alien life, I think xenobiologists would then make a new category based on planet origin, that is of highest order then below each planet order assign a name (most likely adopt what each native species taxonomy labels already were).

[SuperChicken3]

just wanted to say that i really appreciate the replies everyone has posted.

[madisk]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

madisk wrote...
Mammals are characterized by giving live birth, breast feeding, being warm-blooded, etc. The characterization has nothing to do with the anatomy of each species. As long as species from another world follows these same traits without having anything completely bizarre/unique that would make it an unique outlier I'd say they're mammals.

You can call them mammals if you want, but you're no taxologist. 

Neither are you. Until one comes along and gives them a proper name and classification, I'll still resort to calling them mammals because they come closest to fitting the description of mammals.

[dreman9999]

Asari have wombs and a vagina but their sexual stimuli is via mental link.

Quarians are mammals hence Tali having Mammary gland. They give birth to the children so they also have the same parts as we do.

Salarians are Amphibians meaning they do it like fish and they no fun at all with sex but are strangly attracted to Asari. Though their no problem their because both races has no penises and the sex is just mental stimuli.

Turian are a combination of birds and reptiles. Though flying bird don't have a penis, land bird do. So they do "do it" but they lay eggs to give birth.

Krogan are the same but have a "quad".

Also, it may not be pretty to do it with a Hanar but their has to something on the internet that may show you what it would be like.

The Elcor would just be awkward, with their muscles made for heavy gravity and the fact they have to explain what their doing.

Drell, I just don't no but it has to something to do with their eyes.

Geth self replicate.

Bartarians are mammals too. If you play a femshep, on garrus's Mission you meet a sexist recruiter Bartarin. That and they do breed with Asari.



And then theirs Varcha.......O_o Who in the galaxy would do that.

[newcomplex]

KorPhaeron11 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

KorPhaeron11 wrote...

madisk wrote...

PiercedMonk wrote...

madisk wrote...

Quarians are mammals. They reproduce the same way we do - Penis goes in vagina.

Quarians are not mammals. Salarians are not amphibians. Krogans are not suarians. Drell are not reptiles. Hanhar are not big stupid jellyfish. Regardless of any superficial similarities, if it doesn't come from Earth, than Earth's taxonomic classifications do not apply.

Why do they not apply? If you expand the classifications to cover biology of the entire galaxy instead of just one planet you could still apply the same terminology. From the apparent anatomy of the Quarians they seem to have all the properties of mammals on earth.

The names(charactarization) of those animals, are based of earth DNA, Drell might "look" like a reptile, but isnt one, since hes not from earth.

Its like saying that Asari are blue humans with tentacles on their heads.

I have yet to see a Biology book define mammal as requiring a specifc DNA structure.    

Since we have not yet discovered an aliens, its a moot point, your looking for a taxonomical classification for aliens.    No aliens have been discovered.     

classification is a construction, by the leading scientific insitution.   Nobody has defined how we classify alien life.    You are not the leading scientific institution.    

Whats your point?

People are basing what the aliens are in ME2 on how they look, eg Drell reptile.

uh people are saying drell are mammalian.   But yeah, its a valid comparison.    I'd say if a species breastfeeds, is warm blooded, gives live birth, intercourses sexually....yeah, its a mammal.    

Turian are a combination of birds and reptiles. Though flying bird
don't have a penis, land bird do. So they do "do it" but they lay eggs
to give birth.

They give live birth though, but I think they don't breastfeed.    Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.    And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 16 février 2010 - 04:40 .

[Lord Atlia]

Has anyone ever thought that mammals might have evolved independently on 2 separate planets. All these species were created by people, some like the asari and drell, to be deliberately attractive. Something truly alien couldn't be thought up because than it wouldn't be alien, we simply create these fictional alien species by taking common traits and applying them in foreign patterns.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

madisk wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

madisk wrote...
Mammals are characterized by giving live birth, breast feeding, being warm-blooded, etc. The characterization has nothing to do with the anatomy of each species. As long as species from another world follows these same traits without having anything completely bizarre/unique that would make it an unique outlier I'd say they're mammals.

You can call them mammals if you want, but you're no taxologist. 

Neither are you. Until one comes along and gives them a proper name and classification, I'll still resort to calling them mammals because they come closest to fitting the description of mammals.

you humans are all racist

[Rip504]

SuperChicken3 wrote...

just wanted to say that i really appreciate the replies everyone has posted.

Don't stick it in...you may not get it back...lol

[madisk]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

madisk wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

madisk wrote...
Mammals are characterized by giving live birth, breast feeding, being warm-blooded, etc. The characterization has nothing to do with the anatomy of each species. As long as species from another world follows these same traits without having anything completely bizarre/unique that would make it an unique outlier I'd say they're mammals.

You can call them mammals if you want, but you're no taxologist. 

Neither are you. Until one comes along and gives them a proper name and classification, I'll still resort to calling them mammals because they come closest to fitting the description of mammals.

you humans are all racist

I realize it's supposed to be a joke but how does it make me racist if I compare other species as similar or equals to my own?

Modifié par madisk, 16 février 2010 - 04:48 .

[enormousmoonboots]

dreman9999 wrote...

Turian are a combination of birds and reptiles. Though flying bird don't have a penis, land bird do. So they do "do it" but they lay eggs to give birth.
Krogan are the same but have a "quad".

Well, Wrex in the first game tells you that turians have balls and you see one using a urinal in the standard position after you get drunk in the second game. Krogans, though...I heard someone say there was a reference to krogans having clutches somewhere (either one of the books or overheard dialog)?

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

madisk wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

madisk wrote...

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

madisk wrote...
Mammals are characterized by giving live birth, breast feeding, being warm-blooded, etc. The characterization has nothing to do with the anatomy of each species. As long as species from another world follows these same traits without having anything completely bizarre/unique that would make it an unique outlier I'd say they're mammals.

You can call them mammals if you want, but you're no taxologist. 

Neither are you. Until one comes along and gives them a proper name and classification, I'll still resort to calling them mammals because they come closest to fitting the description of mammals.

you humans are all racist

I realize it's supposed to be a joke but how does it make me racist if I compare other species as similar or equals to my own?

stfu racist i'm done talking to you


you're ignorant

[madisk]

As in I'm ignorant to think that extraterrestrial species would be anything like the ones on Earth?

[Bootsykk]

HelterSkelter89 wrote...

they all have mouths don't they?

I just snorted my sweet tea all over my new shirt.

Thanks a lot. <_<

[dreman9999]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Well with the Asari it seems to be some sort of mind meld, so equipment is not the issue. With Tali we don't see any details. For all we know it might be like fish/Salarians, where she lays the eggs and Shep fertilizes them.

On the Quarian Flotila. You talk to Tali's anut. And She says."I was their at tali's Birth, and I was the one who pulled her out."
Quarian give live births, and they have Mammary glands. No fish anything.

[dreman9999]

newcomplex wrote...

KorPhaeron11 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

KorPhaeron11 wrote...

madisk wrote...

PiercedMonk wrote...

madisk wrote...

Quarians are mammals. They reproduce the same way we do - Penis goes in vagina.

Quarians are not mammals. Salarians are not amphibians. Krogans are not suarians. Drell are not reptiles. Hanhar are not big stupid jellyfish. Regardless of any superficial similarities, if it doesn't come from Earth, than Earth's taxonomic classifications do not apply.

Why do they not apply? If you expand the classifications to cover biology of the entire galaxy instead of just one planet you could still apply the same terminology. From the apparent anatomy of the Quarians they seem to have all the properties of mammals on earth.

The names(charactarization) of those animals, are based of earth DNA, Drell might "look" like a reptile, but isnt one, since hes not from earth.

Its like saying that Asari are blue humans with tentacles on their heads.

I have yet to see a Biology book define mammal as requiring a specifc DNA structure.    

Since we have not yet discovered an aliens, its a moot point, your looking for a taxonomical classification for aliens.    No aliens have been discovered.     

classification is a construction, by the leading scientific insitution.   Nobody has defined how we classify alien life.    You are not the leading scientific institution.    

Whats your point?

People are basing what the aliens are in ME2 on how they look, eg Drell reptile.

uh people are saying drell are mammalian.   But yeah, its a valid comparison.    I'd say if a species breastfeeds, is warm blooded, gives live birth, intercourses sexually....yeah, its a mammal.    

Turian are a combination of birds and reptiles. Though flying bird
don't have a penis, land bird do. So they do "do it" but they lay eggs
to give birth.

They give live birth though, but I think they don't breastfeed.    Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.    And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.    

Where did you get the info that Turianshave live births?

[JMKnave]

ShadyKat wrote...

If Captain Kirk can find a way, so can Shepard.

Captain Kirk and Shepard. Going where no man has gone before!

[wenbu217]

newcomplex wrote...
I'd say if a species breastfeeds, is warm blooded, gives live birth, intercourses sexually....yeah, its a mammal.

This ignores the assumption of common ancestry.  Biological taxonomy is largely approached in more recent times from a phylogenetic standpoint--which is classification by evolutionary ancestry.  The phylogenetic group mammalia is defined as having descended from monotremes.  A trait of all currently described phylogenetic trees is that it is assumed that they have their root in an undiscovered common ancestor.  A common earthly ancestor. Taxologist or not, classifying an alien species with our current phylogenetic system does not work.  Furthermore, merely throwing up the excuse that "aliens havent been discovered in real life lol!" does not justify what amounts to a cladistic misdemeanor.  IF alien life were discovered, and IF they indeed evolved separately from the assumed earthly common ancestor, they would not be classified by our phylogenetic system, similar traits or not.  Convergence in evolution does not necessitate common ancestry, or taxonomic classification that is based on ancestry.

But if you'd like to stick with 18th century Linnaean taxonomy, be my guest.

newcomplex wrote...
Intelligent species functioning the same way we do is EXTREMELY probable. In fact, the races in ME are relatively realistic.

Mere speculation, and I would say somewhat hyperbolic.  "Functioning the same way" is very vague; furthermore, your use of all-caps "EXTREMELY" seems exaggeration at best, considering the rather significant lack of empirical evidence (read: discovered alien life forms).  And "relatively realistic?"  Relative to what, the multitudes of alien species we've already discovered and classified?  Again--speculation at best.  If I were you, I'd avoid putting "in fact" in front of a speculative assertion.

[notphrog]

Kirk's Law:

The main character may have sex with any alien species he wants.

[Default137]

Well, my memory is a bit hazy from Xenobiology 101, but I believe that certain things are very likely to appear across all species, even alien ones, just due to how basic/easy/powerful evolutionwise they are, opposable thumbs, peg 1 into slot v, a skull, and a few other things are all examples of this, as they all are very simplistic, work very well, and are generally fairly powerful, all of which distinguish the people on the top of the theoretical evolutionary food chain from those on the bottom.

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the races parts where a bit less normal, but it would most likely be minor things, Talis lack of a strong immune system would probably cause Quarian females to uh, develop a bit differently down there, Garrus has what looks to be a rough outerskin which could cause problems, namely lots of chafing in places where chaffing would not be pleasant, and Thane is well, I'm not good on reptile biology, and skipped all of Thanes talks about how he spawned, so I have no idea honestly.

The thing is, while it would probably work out ( with external help of course, and it would be a lot of work and previous planning ) none of them could conceive, Quarians and Turians are dextro-acidic based, while humans are amino-acid based, Mordin basically mentions why this is bad when he tells femSheps not to ingest, but honestly, it applies to all parts of the deed, which would make children a bit hard, no? Meanwhile, Thane would also be a no-go because his species is just so physically different, chances are, it would be like a human sexing up a real world Komodo Dragon, sure, its got the parts there, but uh, windmills do not work that way.

Modifié par Default137, 16 février 2010 - 05:50 .

[KainrycKarr]

They all have the same basic parts. Arms, heads, legs, fingers/claws....other things.



And yes, Asari do fornicate. They just don't necessarily have to do so, to reproduce.

[PiercedMonk]

newcomplex wrote...

KorPhaeron11 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

KorPhaeron11 wrote...

madisk wrote...

PiercedMonk wrote...

madisk wrote...

Quarians are mammals. They reproduce the same way we do - Penis goes in vagina.

Quarians are not mammals. Salarians are not amphibians. Krogans are not suarians. Drell are not reptiles. Hanhar are not big stupid jellyfish. Regardless of any superficial similarities, if it doesn't come from Earth, than Earth's taxonomic classifications do not apply.

Why do they not apply? If you expand the classifications to cover biology of the entire galaxy instead of just one planet you could still apply the same terminology. From the apparent anatomy of the Quarians they seem to have all the properties of mammals on earth.

The names(charactarization) of those animals, are based of earth DNA, Drell might "look" like a reptile, but isnt one, since hes not from earth.

Its like saying that Asari are blue humans with tentacles on their heads.

I have yet to see a Biology book define mammal as requiring a specifc DNA structure.    

Since we have not yet discovered an aliens, its a moot point, your looking for a taxonomical classification for aliens.    No aliens have been discovered.     

classification is a construction, by the leading scientific insitution.   Nobody has defined how we classify alien life.    You are not the leading scientific institution.    

Whats your point?

People are basing what the aliens are in ME2 on how they look, eg Drell reptile.

uh people are saying drell are mammalian.   But yeah, its a valid comparison.    I'd say if a species breastfeeds, is warm blooded, gives live birth, intercourses sexually....yeah, its a mammal.

Do they have sweat glands, hair, three middle ear bones, and a neocortex region of the brain? Which codex entry is that?

Wenbu217 went over quite succinctly in his or her post as to why none of the alien beings encounctered would fit into any current taxonomic classification. The best that could be said is that a particular alien species exhibits traits that are superficially very similar to those of mammals. They would not be mammals because they couldn't share any common ancestor with mammals, but they could be collouially termed as being mammal-like.

It actually annoys me a bit when the krogan refer to "fish" in the artifical ponds on the citadel. I write it off as the translator simply choosing the word that would best describe whatever fish-like creature is native to Tchunka for easy of understanding, but it still makes my eyes twitch a little.

newcomplex wrote...

Drell are mammals too apparently according to a developer.

Developers say lots of things. Casey Hudson claimed that there wasn't any lesbian romance in 'Mass Effect'. And while we can debate all day back and forth as to whether or not asari are female, I don't think many people would dispute the notion that if a Lady Shepard is attracted to Liara, she's probably not overly adverse to rubbing up against a human female either. Hence, lesbian. Or at least bi.

I'm sure the developers are all great people, and I have much respect for their work and quite enjoy the results thereof, but that doesn't make every off-hand comment they make the unquestionable truth.

Drell might have some mammal like qualities, but they're in no way mammals.

newcomplex wrote...
And being mammals is likely given how they have near identical notions of marriage and love.

...

You just blew my damn mind.

[SL22]

Haven't you learned? All alien species in video games and movies are compatible with humans.