Date: 18 Apr 2012 02:59
Number of posts: 14
RSS: New posts
I liked it, it's easily the kind of thing I can imagine is in my house late at night.
Although I would look into getting a different picture or doctoring the existing picture, just seems so normal.
I think the concept is A-okay, but two things…
SCP-XXX is capable of hunting other mammals, but it prefers humans due to the larger volume of fluid available, and is actively hostile to intruders.
Really? Maybe I'm failing bilogy, but I'd guess animals with heads bigger than ours(horses, elephants, whales…) would have more cochlea fluid. But if I'm wrong, I think that's an ingenious point to call attention to.
It's obvious that the SCP-XXX specimens in our custody aren't the only ones, and we have no idea how many could be out there. On these grounds, SCP-XXX is now reclassified as Keter.
Again, I could be wrong, but as far as I understand classes, Keter doesn't mean that. The object is Euclid, we just don't know how many of it there are. Once they're found, containing and/or destruction is fairly easy.
Yeah, that makes sense. Ill just remove that…
And ill leave it Euclid just to be safe, that was a fairly recent change. I'll see about how other people feel once it's posted, thanks for the feedback!
Wait, does this feed exclusively on the fluid in human ears? And you say that one human turns deaf per feeding: not only would this cause a serious malnourishment problem due to lack of food availability, it would also be extremely noticeable in any place with a consistent population of at least, say, ten. At 100 000 you'd have alot if deaf people and alot of dead flies.
I didn't find any problem with that because, as far as I knew, cicadas, like moths, generally do not eat in their adult stage, only as larva. Since adults only need to live long enough to mate and lay eggs, they live off energetic reserves they accumulate in larval state, rarely feeding.
It would cause a really noticeable deafness epidemic anyway, though.
I'll assume you were trying to correct my terminology there, and I'll just stop you: "flies" being colloquial, its perfectly acceptable to use in this case. Of course, if you weren't, then I'd feel a little akward.
Anyway, while that may be fair point, that still doesn't deal with containment (which I should have brought up earlier) as the containment procedures don't really address how these things would be maintained. Additionally, the Addendum describes a swarm of these things preforming what it earlier decribes as "hunting behaviour", and you can't have a swarm of larva. Being, you know, that they don't have wings. That being the case, that whole segment strongly indicates feeding behaviour in the imago stage. To be honest, this article fails to approach the species from a biological perspective, which it really should. It's a fine article otherwise, but almost all of its glaring errors are in that regard.
I suppose this matters little anyway for anything apart from gaining entomology points, as the person who wrote this has now had his account deleted. Although, I must say, I don't know why.
You know, if no one else has any plans to, and if the original writer isn't going to return, I can probably give this a quick read-over and upload it before lunch.
Looks like the author deleted his account, so its probably fair game.
Then again I have no authority to say that. It could be high treason.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
I've written a tale upvoted by Djoric, Bright, Echo, Yoric, Moose, VAE and Voct, fite me irl if you don't respect
I think I'll post this on the mainlist sometime later today if no-one has any issues - I do feel that I may have fallen into my old habit of attempting to solve a problem by throwing jargon at it and hoping it goes away,
I agree with Roget, give it a once over for details and try it out.
It's a treehopper, but it still looks similar.
I might not use that (thanks anyway), although I will definitely have to change the image, if only because it's on the Wikipedia article.