WoW Petopia Community

I always thought of them as having acid for blood....

Protoraptor Giegerensis.

All this entomology talk is touching my happy nerd place. I'm loving it!!! :3

Turgus wrote:Just remember it IS a creature from WoW, so who knows what kind of selective pressures it has undergone, or effects that the environment has had on its evolution.

Like I said, all things are possible since the ravager comes from a place swimming in magic e.g. an alternate plane of reality

Instead of making this so serious about what IS or IS NOT possible

Takes two to tango doesn't it?

especially when a creature like the ravager IS possible

[Logical Fallacy: wanting it to be so and saying it is so does not make it so]

lets have more fun with it.
Since it DOES exist in the game try to imagine why it is the way it is.

Thanks.

Which is what I did - if you go back and check, my personal offering on this was that the ravager got its start as a planar reverberation caused by nightmares from Azeroth, in a place where anything can materialize from the nether at any time; after all, at some point (and we passed it a ways back) trying to hyper-rationalize something as strange as the ravager, in a place like that, without magic as a factor, becomes the more tenuous route.

Thanks.

I never said that I wanted a ravager to be real.
But, the biology of a ravager, at least what can be gathered from game play shows that it follows the basic structural makeup and behavior of real animals.
Nothing about it defies the laws of physics, so I come to the conclusion that it is possible for it to exist as an animal in the real world.
Just how it came about, what pressures brought it about, well that is another story.

You can assert that it can not exist, but with little explanation aside from a statement that its digestive system is too short.
Which, as nature has shown us is not the case. Many predators have "short" digestive tracts and they are quite successful.

Now, if the ravager floated in the air, or shot magic missiles out of its mouth that would be another story.

You can assert that it requires magic or some other explanation for existence, but I see nothing about a ravager that would suggest that.

But, this seems to be a useless argument with someone over something that really is quite meaningless.
So I guess I will leave it at that.

Turgus wrote:Many predators have "short" digestive tracts and they are quite successful.

Just to further enforce this point, strictly carnivorous animals generally have comparitively shorter digestive tracts than herbivorous animals of similar size and shape, because their digestive systems don't have to break down the cellulose that makes up the wall in plant cells.

Biology is cool.

This is such a great discussion! *cheers them on*
And yes, biology IS cool!

1) Read this (don't forget to read the trivia line at the end).

2) Scrabs have beaks powerful enough to snap bone, connected to their powerful torso by a muscular arched neck. In addition to rows of sharp teeth, their tongue is highly muscular and has a bony tip for spearing prey. Four strapping legs radiate from their pelvis, ending in single toes, useful for swift running and pulverising their captured prey. Their red‐orange hide provides camouflage against the desert sands. They do not have eyes, but are thought to see by echolocation.

3)

Hope this helps.

swordoath wrote:

Turgus wrote:Many predators have "short" digestive tracts and they are quite successful.

Just to further enforce this point, strictly carnivorous animals generally have comparitively shorter digestive tracts than herbivorous animals of similar size and shape, because their digestive systems don't have to break down the cellulose that makes up the wall in plant cells.

Biology is cool.

Yes, and that's the difference between average sized vs large sized, neither of which classification fits the ravager's extremely spindly abdomen (which is really more of a doubled over tail fused in chitin).

Other than being different, apples are exactly the same as oranges.

\http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/NT ... r_4nu9b8dg

Japanese Spider Crabs (Macrocheira kaempferi) can grow to a leg-span of 12-13 feet weighing in at 40 ish lbs.
The painting of the crab the woman is next to is life size.

Coconut Crabs (Birgus latro) are the largest land arthropod and can get pretty large. (3ft long ish and around 10 pounds)

Worba wrote:
...that's the difference between average sized vs large sized...

What the heck is average size? or large size?
What are you comparing it to?

As an organism increases in size it does have to deal with certain factors, surface area vs. volume being a big one. Of course this can be dealt with in a variety of ways as we have seen in nature. (folds in digestive tissues to maximize absorption, etc)

This by no means proves your point, and it actually turns out to be quite contrary to your assertion, as there have been arthropod predators larger than human in size that are not that much different morphologically than living relatives.
(Take a look at Jaekelopterus rhenaniae or Arthropleura armata)

http://i50.tinypic.com/149nuqg.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/1 ... 68x769.jpg

You CAN and should compare apples to oranges, for while they appear different they share allot of properties that are very similar.
(I have always hated that saying, seriously, if you can't compare them how do you decide which one to eat?)

Turgus wrote:\http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/NT ... r_4nu9b8dg

Japanese Spider Crabs (Macrocheira kaempferi) can grow to a leg-span of 12-13 feet weighing in at 40 ish lbs.
The painting of the crab the woman is next to is life size.

Coconut Crabs (Birgus latro) are the largest land arthropod and can get pretty large. (3ft long ish and around 10 pounds)

I see you misread my post - when I mentioned size it was in the context of digestive areas. E.g. a horse or cow needs a larger belly to break down plants, as compared to say a lion or wolf's belly. I was not saying a chitinous creature couldn't be large.

As an organism increases in size it does have to deal with certain factors, surface area vs. volume being a big one. Of course this can be dealt with in a variety of ways as we have seen in nature. (folds in digestive tissues to maximize absorption, etc)

This by no means proves your point, and it actually turns out to be quite contrary to your assertion, as there have been arthropod predators larger than human in size that are not that much different morphologically than living relatives.

See above...

Worba said:
I see you misread my post - when I mentioned size it was in the context of digestive areas. E.g. a horse or cow needs a larger belly to break down plants, as compared to say a lion or wolf's belly. I was not saying a chitinous creature couldn't be large.

Are you really still stuck on this?

Digestive systems CAN be "small" and efficient which means that they do not need a huge area of the body to be effective, but me telling you this AGAIN AND AGAIN obviously isn't convincing you.
Please, do some reading on invertebrates it will to do yourself some good.
I am sure the library will have all sorts of good stuff for you.


I am not trying to be rude, but you really need to educate yourself if you are going to make statements about stuff like this.

Turgus wrote:

Worba said:
I see you misread my post - when I mentioned size it was in the context of digestive areas. E.g. a horse or cow needs a larger belly to break down plants, as compared to say a lion or wolf's belly. I was not saying a chitinous creature couldn't be large.

Are you really still stuck on this?

Are you still here? Last I recall you were claiming to be "done with this discussion - good DAY sir"

Digestive systems CAN be "small" and efficient which means that they do not need a huge area of the body to be effective, but me telling you this AGAIN AND AGAIN obviously isn't convincing you.

[Logical Fallacy: wanting something to be so, and saying it is so, does not make it so - even saying it repeatedly AND USING ALL CAPS doesn't make it so, surprisingly enough]

Please, do some reading on invertebrates it will to do yourself some good.
I am sure the library will have all sorts of good stuff for you.

Ah yes, when your grasp of logic fails, pointing fingers and calling names is always effective.

I am not trying to be rude, but you really need to educate yourself if you are going to make statements about stuff like this.

If you truly believe that, then you need to take a minute to revisit your own motives, because you are projecting heavily my friend.

Bottom line: even though you are unable to show any real world precedent that is closer to the ravager's mantid form than crabs and centipedes, and the ravager is native to a world spawned from magic, you continue to hold out for the idea that the ravager surely must not have any extraordinary or supernatural components.

Well and good, and I happen to take the opposite view - yet for some reason this seems to upset you.

Arguing about such a subject is much like debating whether purple is more like blue than red; the ravager is a bunch of pixels in a game, and neither of us "have to" agree with the other.

Worba wrote:
Are you still here? Last I recall you were claiming to be "done with this discussion - good DAY sir"

Yes, yes I am. At that point of the thread I was. Oh, and good day to you as well.


You wouldn't know this but I happen to be a marine biology major in my senior year in college, and I just happen to be focusing on marine invertebrates.
I don't claim to be an authority, but I do know more than your average person, and I am learning more every day.
So, if you don't believe me when I make a statement about some morphological process that certain invertebrates have, thats fine.
Look it up for yourself and show me how I am wrong.

Worba wrote:

Quote:
Please, do some reading on invertebrates it will to do yourself some good.
I am sure the library will have all sorts of good stuff for you.

Ah yes, when your grasp of logic fails, pointing fingers and calling names is always effective.

Pointing fingers? Calling names? Really?
I suggested you do some reading on the subject.
Thats how I and everyone else on campus finds out about things that we don't know that much about or to clarify a question or concern that we have.

Here, I can quote passages from one of my textbooks about invertebrate biology, or even give you the title and page numbers to show that there is a basis for what I am talking about. (The authors being real authorities in the field of invertebrates)

Here is the textbook I am going to use:

Brusca, R. & Brusca G. (2003) Invertebrates. Massachusetts.
ISBN 0-87893-097-3

How about a quote from the above textbook about the digestive system of a Hexapod?

"...Like the gut of all arthropods, the long usually straight hexapod gut divisible into a stomodeal foregut, endodermal midgut and proctodeal hindgut... ...Along with their vast range of feeding habits, insects have evolved a number of specialized digestive structures. The foregut is typically divided into a defined pharyx, esophagus, crop and proventriculus. The pharyx is muscular, particularly in the sucking insects, in which it commonly forms a pharyngeal pump. The crop is a storage center whose walls are highly extensible in species that consume large but infrequent meals. The proventriculus regulates food passage into the midgut, either as a simple valve that strains the simifluid foods of sucking insects or as a grinding organ called a gizzard or gastric mill, that masticates the chunks ingested by biting insects... ...The midgut (=stomach) of most insects bears gastric ceca that lies near the midgut-foregut junction and resembles those of crustaceans. These evaginations serve to increase the surface area available for digestion and absorption. In some cases the ceca also house mutualistic microorganisms (bacteria and protozoa). The insect hindgut serves primarily to regulate the decomposition of the feces and perhaps to absorb nutrients. Digestion of cellulase by termites and certain wood-eating roaches is made possible by enzymes produced by protozoa and bacteria that inhabit the hindgut... " (Page 615)

I don't have a scanner or I would add a picture of the illustration in the book.
They are pretty cool and do not take up "that" much of the body cavity.

Bottom line: even though you are unable to show any real world precedent that is closer to the ravager's mantid form than crabs and centipedes, and the ravager is native to a world spawned from magic, you continue to hold out for the idea that the ravager surely must not have any extraordinary or supernatural components.

Really the "mantid form" of a ravager is a reason that it can't exist without magic?
Sure our planet does not have an animal that has that particular adaptation but it is not that outside of the realm of possible adaptations.
There are animals out there with odd adaptations.
The Australian stick insect (Phasmida) has a crescent shaped body. The posterior and anterior ends are the opposite of the ravager.
The fairy shrimp (Anostraca) swims on its back. So "backwards" adaptations are not unheard of.
(Argulus foriaceus) is an interesting looking brachiuran that can paralyze fish.
Deep sea isopods (Bathynomus) can be real nasty looking.
And there are tons more.

Worba wrote:
Trying to make the ravager viable sans magic is like saying a mantis could be viable without its huge abdomen.

I would think that adaptations that the octopus and the squid have would be more likely to be in a "magical realm" for they can change their shape, color and texture to imitate just about any surface almost perfectly. (They do have problems making stripes though)
But if you want a really good example of a small digestive system take a look at the arachnid harvestman. (Opiliones)

Worba wrote:
Well and good, and I happen to take the opposite view - yet for some reason this seems to upset you.

No, you are not upsetting me. I just hate reading unsupported statements, especially when they go unchallenged.

I suddenly have the overwhelming urge to shout "Is anyone here a marine biologist?"

Seriously though, it's awesome that we have some seriously scientific backing in his thread. Makes for excellent conversation.

*takes notes*

I always look at them as if they are angry bananas with legs and teeth.

I agree with others. By killing them, you find out a lot about what they are. "Chipped Ravager Carapace" suggests they have a bug-like outer armor that can also hold Fel Scales, "Ravager Flesh" suggests they also have a fleshy layer beneath the armor which can also be made into Knothide Leather.
Their large quills are like feathered crests of any crested bird (cardinal, cockatiel, cockatoo, etc) or feathered dinosaur (like Velociraptor mongoliensis). So I guess they could be somewhat related to a dinosaur with their quills, "Chipped Ravager Claws", toothy jaws, fleshy tough skin, and aggressive manner, but it can also related to hard-shelled insects with their overall body construction, carapace armor, and spider-like movement.

As for RPing with a ravager, I'd probably look at them more as a dinosaur/velociraptor than a bug. Why? It's easier to see a Ravager replace a Raptor in the film "Jurassic Park" than it would be to replace that hairy-legged spider crawling up your wall. The vibrating intensity of the aggressive Ravager fits the way we picture prehistoric creatures in film, as well as all other kinds of angry, antagonist critters that try to attack humans and obliterate the human race.

Oh, yes.. About that back-flip. I saw a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqvomklXxtA

The backflip is it's special attack animation. When it uses Ravage it does the backflip. The nemy is also knocked to it's back (no effect in the game other than the visual) which looks hilarious on big things like the skeletal giants in Icecrown.

Their new ability also shows they can easily tear through armor

Well I can't say much for a ravager's intestines or whatever, but I've had a ravager before and I do have a few things of note that might help with emotes XD

I think somebody mentioned it, but their quills move, which I always thought was very cool. When they idle next to you they turn their head, but they also raise their quills and shake them. On my ravager, Inachus, I always saw this as kind of the equivalent to a mane or ears on other animals; when the quills are lower he seemed more friendly and relaxed, while when they were raised it was kinda like he was flaring up and making himself look bigger or more dangerous. It could also be a defense, or, as somebody suggested, a way of communication (rattling the quills to mean X meaning).

There is a backflip, yes. I think it hints that they're surprisingly agile, and also clever enough to do more than just stab with a claw or bite with their huge fangs; they know how to utilize everything on them to fight.

Also, the way they move is interesting. When they walk they almost waddle, and look surprisingly awkward. It's like they're not used to it. They also stand pretty tall then, which again makes them look relaxed, and a little silly. But when they run everything changes; they lower farther to the ground, their legs spread out more, and they shoot forward very fast. They look much more dangerous, balanced, in control, and ready to tear your face off then.

Basically I guess what this all sums up to is body language: ravagers seem to use it a lot to denote being passive and calm versus being aggressive and deadly. And I imagine they can hair-trigger back and forth between them easily.

Also I vote against cold-blooded, just because in Cata ravagers show up in Winterspring and it doesn't seem to affect them too much if I understand correctly...if they were cold-blooded, they'd be screwed in an environment like that.

~VelkynKarma