Deduced evolutionary relationships of Subnautica fauna
Phrenomythic
Denmark Join Date: 2017-08-22 Member: 232551Members
Denmark Join Date: 2017-08-22 Member: 232551Members
OK, so, just for the heck of it, I did a so-called phylogenetic analysis of the different animal species in Subnautica. I plotted a bunch of characteristics in a character matrix and ran it through a phylogenetics program. The results are... interesting! Below you can see a consensus tree of the analysis.
The fish-like species (Biter through Peeper) are held together in a single branch that is reasonably well supported, and there is also a branch that I call "fluke-swimmers" (Boneshark through Garryfish) that are more like dolphins and whales in their mode of swimming. All the rays are also in their own branch. The species that are like arthropods are in their own branch too!
However, there are also many problems: There are many unresolved relationships at the bottom of the tree and some strange groupings, like the Hoverfish with the Ghost and Reaper Leviathan. The Oculus and Bladderfish are out on a limb together and also the Ampeel is left out in the cold.
Of course, there are many issues with the data set. Not to get too technical, but there were 130 equally likely trees and a very low consistency index (0.39). I reckon that is because there is far from enough characters to sort out relationships, because I could literally only go skin deep.
What do you all think?
The fish-like species (Biter through Peeper) are held together in a single branch that is reasonably well supported, and there is also a branch that I call "fluke-swimmers" (Boneshark through Garryfish) that are more like dolphins and whales in their mode of swimming. All the rays are also in their own branch. The species that are like arthropods are in their own branch too!
However, there are also many problems: There are many unresolved relationships at the bottom of the tree and some strange groupings, like the Hoverfish with the Ghost and Reaper Leviathan. The Oculus and Bladderfish are out on a limb together and also the Ampeel is left out in the cold.
Of course, there are many issues with the data set. Not to get too technical, but there were 130 equally likely trees and a very low consistency index (0.39). I reckon that is because there is far from enough characters to sort out relationships, because I could literally only go skin deep.
What do you all think?
Comments
Oculuses/Oculi look so similar to Peepers that you'd think the creators saw them as related. However, they have radical differences in their body plan, namely Oculus lacks a mouth and has "stalks" instead of a tail fin. So that is probably why it ended up with the also mouthless Bladderfish. The reason that Crashfish and Spadefish end up together is probably because of the single eye etc.
I suppose there is too much weird variation in the number of eyes and other fundamental things to make the fauna look truly evolved.
The PDA entry for the Oculus states: and
I would like to know how the creators of the game accounted for those radical changes in body plan. What is the function of the stalks and how would it help navigate the cave system? Also, why did the Oculus lose its beak and mouth? How does it feed then? Why was this change necessary?
Like so many science fiction writers, the creators are clearly not evolutionary biologists, and that is okay, of course. It is an interesting exercise to see how realistic a fantasy fauna is by putting it to the test this way. Still, we will need loads of supplemental characters and refine the ones I currently chose for the analysis.
Subnautica: Alien Fauna Analysis
What software did you use? What characteristics? Were there any less parsimonious trees of interest?
I mean, what is a Sea Dragon Leviathan except a Sea Emperor Leviathan with the webbed paws, crocodilian jaw, green scales and fire-spitting habits of a Lava Lizard grafted on? Looks like something the Precursors would have whipped up to see if they could get an organism more breedable in captivity that had the Emperor's enzymes. Whoops. Bad choice.
Thank you! The phylogenetics software I used is PAUP. It may be a little bit too technical for laymen and you have to know what you're doing. Maybe I will make a simple tutorial some time.
Yeah, it was a really rough survey, so maybe I could open it to public input. However, it does require some zoological expertise to choose characters, and the most valuable characters are the ones that we don't really have: Small anatomical details that are the least likely affected by convergent evolution.
Indeed! That is the exact same reason why I left out the Warper. The added option of ascribing the "Frankensteinian" nature of the fauna to the actions of the precursors is a plausible explanation.
I had a little brainstorm for a common ancestor that I sketched down below:
In gathering characteristics to define and group species, I hadn't thought of needing to know the internal structure, but it seems completely obvious now that you mention it. And I think someone said this already, but there are some species that have gone extinct because of the carar disease, so there's even more information that we're missing.
And as far as Frankenstein species go, you mentioned the Warper and I think that is the best example. Because canonically, that's literally what it is. Its existence lends weight to the idea that the Precursors created some of the other species we see in the game.
Aight, very neat video!...
Also... Does my ear detect a fellow Dutchman, @Phrenomythic
Good points! It sounds like you know what you're talking about!
We could allow for all these things (genetic manipulation, easier lateral gene transfer), but I haven't quite given up on concocting some kind of evolutionary history by speculating on what body parts are derived from the same ancestral structures (i.e. homologues).
Yesterday, I posted a quick sketch I made of a possible common ancestor. However, that message is gone, so I wonder whether they thought my drawing was supposed to represent something obscene. XD
Thank you!
And yes, as soon as I learned about what happened with the Warper, I crossed it off the list. Of course one could always claim weird things happened to the fauna of 4546b, because of carar/mass extinction/precursors, to kinda explain things. A lot of diversity and intermediate forms may have been pruned.
Thanks! And yes indeed, although I try what I can to lessen my accent. :-)
(Lookin at you crashfish)
Hmm... I suspect segmentation of the appendages might make sense for the hypothetical common ancestor (at least to the level of Onychophora). One might see a reduction take place depending on the linneage. It also might make sense for the ancestor (of most species anyway) to have had four eyes, and then have it so they were reduced in some branches.
I also suspect that floaters might be more closely related to the membrane tree and cove tree compared to other species of animal. Anyway, I think the idea of debating evolutionary theories (cladistics aside) sounds like great fun.
Btw. I thought your alternate history video on Norse settlement in North America was pretty great. As a Métis I approve.
Indeed. As the outgroup I chose the lava larva and rock grub on purpose. Since even the sandshark has little legs, I imagine a lobopodan-like common ancestor.
Yes, those were exactly my thoughts! Well spotted! The number of eyes is so disparate, yet there are some patterns: 1 pair, two pairs or a single eye, and in some cases combinations. So I surmised that the ancestral state was having all of them combined and then lost in the different lineages.
I haven't even considered the flora etc. yet...
Ooh, that's so cool! Yes, it would have been a continent of Métis in that timeline! :-D
There is no sea empress.
Until modders show up. Senpai, my fins are moving on their own uguu~~
Thought seriously, they could have come on an asteroid.
According to the current canon lore all of the species are hermaphroditic.
So, really, it is a sea empressor or emperroress...
The "emperor" is female.
Respect.