HOME | DD
InkGink — What happened to the Lagomorphs?
#after #animal #animals #biology #creature #creatures #fickle #future #greater #ground #million #millions #mud #project #speculative #spotted #striped #tree #trudger #us #years #ghump #barkbear #stretchook #wateryl
Published: 2016-09-19 00:24:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 2092; Favourites: 25; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
*ZOOM IN FOR BETTER QUALITYIn the time of After us, 50 million years in the future, the world is mostly dominated by birds and reptiles. 'Where are all the mammals?' one might wonder. Well, that story is about to be told, sit my children by the fire, as we read from the book of the future...
Long ago, 50 million years to be exact, the age of the mammals was still going strong, and humanity was not. A few hundred years after encompassing most of the globe, they set off to some other world (but that is a different story), and they left earth to rot. While most buildings where scrapped to build generation spaceships, the rest took a while to return to the earth, and that time, the time when humanity left the earth, was the time the animals took back their home. The mammals where greatly reduced by the humans, but so were all other creatures. With all the new biomes and ecosystems emerging from the wreckage of humanity, many niches where opened. While most of the animals experimented with different niches, the mammals, reduced to a few small rat to dog sized creatures, stayed small, while the reptiles and birds evolved faster and took up all the niche spaces. While some mammals grew to impressive sizes for that time, many of them where just ground crawlers and tree climbers, and some took to the oceans for better survival chances. Among these crawlers and climbers, the Lagomorphs where some of the most successful, taking most of the niches quicker than the others. The mammals stayed small for the most part, just food for the dominant birds and reptiles, and it remained that way for millions of years and it is still that way when this project takes place, 50 million years into the future. Enough chat, lets meet some of these successful mammals (these are descended from Lagomorphs).
NORTH AMERICAN VARIETIES:
1. Striped Fickle- Probably the most successful mammals, the Fickle can be found all over North america and most of Asia and Africa, small and deer-like, the Fickle descend from rabbits, and are suited to a grazing life style, and easily trot away from most common predators. Fickles have beaks, derived from the fused front teeth of their rabbit ancestors. The Striped Fickle is one of the medium sized ones, although closer to the small end of the spectrum.
2. Greater Trudger- The Trudgers evolved from a proto-Fickle, when mammals where still experimenting with niches. This split from the Fickle ancestor gave rise to a new form- an elongated body. While the Trudgers became quite successful as well, they were not as lucky as the Fickles.
3. Barkbear- Barkbears spend most of their days clung onto trees, chewing the bark off. While this is not the only thing they eat, it makes up a great deal of their diet. They have also been known to eat small insects and leaves as well. When threatened, A Barkbear might scurry up a tree, for it is not as suited for running, with its elongated neck and short tail and limbs. If it cannot scurry up a tree, it turns to its claws as weapons. Fearsome claws, usually used to grip on trees, can also be used for defense. The Barkbears descended from a different species of rabbit than the one the Fickle and Trudger share
4. Tree Ghump- The Ghumps are small compact creatures who fill a variety of different niches. This Ghump eats the leaves from trees along with bark sometimes. They tend to stay high up in the trees, hidden by the leaves.
5. Ground Ghump- The Ground Ghump is extremely closely related to the Tree Ghump, but has suited its lifestyle for burrowing in the ground. It eats insects as well as small reptiles and other small mammals.
6. Stretchook- Stretchooks Grip to the sides of a tree use their outstretched body to get fruit or insects on higher parts of the tree, their bodies are so suited for this that they have long tails have a rough patch of skin to help grip the tree, their body has a rough underside to cling on to the bark, the body is also outstretched, as well as the neck, as well as their manipulative tongue they use to grip fruits.
7. Mud Trudger- This species of Trudger is transitioning to life in the water, losing most of it hair for slippery skin, this Trudger slithers through the mud and shallow waters and streams.
8. Spotted Wateryl- The Wateryls are a group of animals that descended from Lagomorphs and quickly evolved to live in freshwater streams, beating the Trudgers in the race for the water.
SCIENTIFIC NAMES
Striped Fickle - Tigrelaphus spp. (meaning "tigerine deer")
Greater Trudger - Mallinophidus akindenus (meaning "harmless wooly snake")
Barkbear - Phloiocuniculus folivorus (meaning "sloth-like bark rabbit")
Tree Ghump - Cornulepus dentrus (meaning "tree tusked rabbit")
Ground Ghump - Cornulepus xerus (meaning "land tusked rabbit")
Stretchook - Tentonolepus paraxenus (meaning "unusual stretchy rabbit)
Mud Trudger - Pseudophoca laspekatoikia (meaning "mud-dwelling false seal")
Spotted Wateryl - Dipodolagus ydrobius (meaning "aquatic bipedal rabbit")
Thanks to for scientifically naming my creatures!
Want more after us creatures? You can find them Here !
Related content
Comments: 32
the barkbear looks like a sloth, its a sloth rabbit!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you are quite good at taking one modern group and REALLY diversifying it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You overtook me because i was going to do a lagomorph descendant haha 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! Ill look forward to yours
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
These seem a bit too derived to occur in 50 million years time. And why are they all beaked?
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Well in this universe the human race has great affect on most animals and they had to evolve quickly to suit the changing environments, but when humans left it opened up niches and they rushed to fill them so they could survive, thus causing the derived forms. And only the Fickle is beaked, the rest just have hard scaly skin or you might be confusing it for a nose in some of them.
Also a lot can happen in 50 million years
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That still doesn't explain why some of them look almost reptilian in appearence. 50 million years is a long time, yes, but it's nowhere near long enough for a lineage of small, herbivorous mammals to evolve into the creatures that you have shown.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Fish became amphibians in about 50 million years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They are still herbivorous and medium sized, and they just have tougher skin and different body shapes.
Whales evolved in 50 million years
Humans from primates
Dinosaurs to all the birds we know today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I really understand the idea of the derivation is reasonable with the amount of time compared with X animals, but what you did with lagomorphs seems wrong, most because these forms come to evolve without some kind of logical explanation of why developed these forms (And yes, I read the first part, a mass extinction, but that's more the start point that an explanation) all designs evolve because "is the future" (is the same as the crocodiles that you did)
Whales evolved in 50 million yearsokay, Im going to repeat what I said to kamarodu21....
Dont get me wrong, mammals have reached an incredibly diverse variety of forms in that amount of time, but compare the evolution of whales with what has been done here is quite erroneous. Unlike many mammals, whales went through much more profound changes because changed its lifestyle from land animals to sea creatures, as much can be compared with other types of marine mammals (eg pinnipeds in contrast to terrestrial carnivorans). The 7 and 8 creautres manage to get quite well in this comparison, however, the rest are too derivatives compared to their current relative, which practically have the same niche that they have.
Humans from primatesWhich kind of primate exactly? I can understand by primitive forms as lemurs, however, primates like apes?
Dinosaurs to all the birds we know today.
This is a bad comparison, first, these archosaurs have 150 millions of years of advantage; second, they really are so different? I can understand for specialized forms, but considering how much we know now about theropod, they are not so different, in fact like shark these have the most conservative forms.
I must say that lagomorphs, in my opinion, would not be as able to evolve such forms in that amount of time at least the serpentine and burrowing forms (which is kinda unnecessary, many species are now burrowing), considering what they have done most of its kind, I would expect that these niches were claimed by more generalistic groups of mammals such as insectivorous, and thinking well, the crocodiles that you did somehow they should have prevented the evolution of these ones, as several have evolved in the same ecological niches. Lagomorphs are practically specialized in feeding on plant, it would be more likely to adopt herbivorous niches without such huge changes.
I must say you don't take this criticism in a bad way, I really like what you're trying to do here, however, don't go so bizarre because it's cool or that sort of thing, it is a terrible way to create future worlds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
First of all thanks for the criticism
It was never my intention to make them just because they "looked cool", i didn't mean for it to seem that way.
Many of them are convergently evolved with some animals we know today such as deer (fickle) moles (Ground Ghump) and squirrels (Tree Ghump), and i know that isn't enough of an explanation, but i even though i had my second thought about how diversified they were, i don't think they are THAT diverse. The crocodiles did indeed stump there number of species and kept them at small sizes, but i don't think it would be impossible for creatures like these to evolve. i don't know what you mean by "many species are now burrowing" but if you meant my creatures, then i'm pretty sure the only burrowing one i made was a crocodile one, if you meant modern animals, then most animals went extinct (i know you know this already) when humans lived including almost all burrowing creatures, and these filled their niches. Personally i don't think it is too unlikely Lagomorphs would evolve into forms at least similar to these due to the pressures they faced to diversify in this universe.
As for all the "in 50 million years X turned into X..." You were right on what you said on those.
Thanks for the constructive criticism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm glad you took well these points.
It was never my intention to make them just because they "looked cool", i didn't mean for it to seem that way. Is nice to hear that
Many of them are convergently evolved with some animals we know today such as deer (fickle) moles (Ground Ghump) and squirrels (Tree Ghump), and i know that isn't enough of an explanation, but i even though i had my second thought about how diversified they were, i don't think they are THAT diverse.I cant say that is impossible that a lagomorph can took those niches, but the main problem is how these have evolve to take them, many have developed unnecesary adaptations like become elongated (as a serpen) and its very derived look, they would be more likely to evolve into a more long time as 100 million years, after a few more radiation and extinction events.
Even In After Man this kind of detail was taken into account for some lagomorphs descendants, which still have a recognizable features (Just look the rabbuk)
i don't know what you mean by "many species are now burrowing" but if you meant my creatures, then i'm pretty sure the only burrowing one i made was a crocodile one, if you meant modern animals, then most animals went extinct (i know you know this already) when humans lived including almost all burrowing creatures, and these filled their niches.
I mean that burrowing lagomorphs are a thing, like pikas, which some could survive in these situations, and shows that they not need to evolve into mole-like forms.
Personally i don't think it is too unlikely Lagomorphs would evolve into forms at least similar to these due to the pressures they faced to diversify in this universe.Without any really base or justification is still unlikely, is just "they evolve because reasons" and is all.
They are not as rodents, maybe for its reproductive behavior, which allows them to multiply and they are very adaptable to feed on the surrounding vegetation, however, that will not guarantee its diversification, especially if there are other more generalist clades alive (like crocodiles).
Just to said to understand better what Im talking, I tell an example to kamarodu21, about that Dicynodonts were in the same situation, they were like lagomorphs, specialized herbivorous with a reproductive advantage that allows them to survive a terrible mass extinction, and without any competition they would take over the world, but they didnt. They almost were overcome by advanced forms of tetrapods in the long term, and because of their limitations, failed to take new varieties of niches. Survive is one thing, diversify is another.
I would say try to consult with others with more experience to develop more accurate beings in terms of possibilites in relation with time, these creatures have the potential, however, they are too bizarre and in a way unnatural.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Is nice to hear that "
"I cant say that is impossible that a Lagomorph can took those niches, but the main problem is how these have evolve to take them, many have developed unnecesary adaptations like become elongated (as a serpen) and its very derived look, they would be more likely to evolve into a more long time as 100 million years, after a few more radiation and extinction events.
Even In After Man this kind of detail was taken into account for some Lagomorphs descendants, which still have a recognizable features (Just look the rabbuk)"
the serpentine one has a more elongated look because it descended from burrowing Lagomorphs that gave up the burrowing lifestyle, where elongated forms were better suited, similar to the snakes of today.
I guess you are right, 100 million years is definitely more viable, and After Mans Rabbucks inspired me to make the fickle, with the deer like appearance, and i can see what you mean by they still have recognizable features, and mine don't, do you think taking away the beak and giving the Fickle larger ears would help this problem?
"I mean that burrowing lagomorphs are a thing, like pikas, which some could survive in these situations, and shows that they not need to evolve into mole-like forms."
I guess the Ghumps could be descended from Pikas, just one more specialized in burrowing and one for trees?
"Without any really base or justification is still unlikely, is just "they evolve because reasons" and is all.
They are not as rodents, maybe for its reproductive behavior, which allows them to multiply and they are very adaptable to feed on the surrounding vegetation, however, that will not guarantee its diversification, especially if there are other more generalist clades alive (like crocodiles)."
I see, the crocodiles would probably hold them back from diversifying that far :/
And I see your point, i will try to explain further in my next deviations how my animals diversify and why.
"Just to said to understand better what Im talking, I tell an example to kamarodu21, about that Dicynodonts were in the same situation, they were like lagomorphs, specialized herbivorous with a reproductive advantage that allows them to survive a terrible mass extinction, and without any competition they would take over the world, but they didnt. They almost were overcome by advanced forms of tetrapods in the long term, and because of their limitations, failed to take new varieties of niches. Survive is one thing, diversify is another."
Thanks, that was a really good example
ill remember: to survive is one thing, to diversify is another. But why didn't the Dicynodonts take over the world?
"I would say try to consult with others with more experience to develop more accurate beings in terms of possibilites in relation with time, these creatures have the potential, however, they are too bizarre and in a way unnatural."
Very good advice
I often try to get advice from people with much knowledge on evolution and speculative evolution but i often cannot find any
That being said, if you would be interested in helping me whenever i need to consult with someone about plausible organisms, i would be delighted, i really look up to how interesting your creatures are, and you seem to be very experienced. If you don't want to then that's okay, you're probably a very busy person.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
the serpentine one has a more elongated look because it descended from burrowing Lagomorphs that gave up the burrowing lifestyle, where elongated forms were better suited, similar to the snakes of today.The main problem I see here is comparing 2 evolutionary paths from 2 different clades, ie, snakes came from a very flexible kind of tetrapods in terms of morphology, while mammals are a bit more conservative, if you see all varieties of burrowing mammals you can see what Im talking about.
I guess you are right, 100 million years is definitely more viable, and After Mans Rabbucks inspired me to make the fickle, with the deer like appearance, and i can see what you mean by they still have recognizable features, and mine don't, do you think taking away the beak and giving the Fickle larger ears would help this problem?I say that is better, a beak does not seem reasonable, taking into account all current adaptations of herbivorous mammals and even lagomorphs themselves have. I would say yes for the large ears, but no much. For the rest, the hoofs seem reasonable, you could make similar to muntjac or water deers.
I see, the crocodiles would probably hold them back from diversifying that far :/
And I see your point, i will try to explain further in my next deviations how my animals diversify and why.Nice
Very good advice
I often try to get advice from people with much knowledge on evolution and speculative evolution but i often cannot find any I would suggest you to ask in a journal.
Other option would be to see the SE forum , is a good place where some good speccers came to talk, but of course, be careful, there are own opinions and some different thoughts that can contrast with what you think or believe, but at the end is good for people that want to improve a project or work.
That being said, if you would be interested in helping me whenever i need to consult with someone about plausible organisms, i would be delighted, i really look up to how interesting your creatures are, and you seem to be very experienced. If you don't want to then that's okay, you're probably a very busy person.I can help you if you want 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I would suggest you to ask in a journal.
Other option would be to see the SE forum , is a good place where some good speccers came to talk, but of course, be careful, there are own opinions and some different thoughts that can contrast with what you think or believe, but at the end is good for people that want to improve a project or work."
Cool! Ill check it out
"I can help you if you want , of course, I will not respond momentarily."
Okay,
Thank you so much!
i will try not to bother you too much, but if i am in need of assistance and can't find any, ill probably note you, and it doesn't matter if you don't respond right away
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know this is old AF but the diverse shown wouldnt have been possible just based on the fact rabbits need to eat hay because its the only thing that can go through thier system.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In 50 million years, dog-like mammals became a blue whale, so these is not that weird !
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
In 50 million years too, rodent-like lagomorphs became a... lagomorphs... so.
Dont get me wrong, mammals have reached an incredibly diverse variety of forms in that amount of time, but compare the evolution of whales with what has been done here is quite erroneous. Unlike many mammals, whales went through much more profound changes because changed its lifestyle from land animals to sea creatures, as much can be compared with other types of marine mammals (eg pinnipeds in contrast to terrestrial carnivorans).
The 7 and 8 creautres manage to get quite well in this comparison, however, the rest are too derivatives compared to their current relative, which practically have the same niche that they have, there is not any specific history about why evolve in that way, the only justification is because is the future and they need to be weird to take new niches, which viewing the current ecological diversity of lagomorphs and over the last million years seems improbable. Without any specific timeline which explains it seems just wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I really don't see lagomorphs as very specialized creature, their only difference with the basal rodent is their strong legs and their feeding habits, if they didn't evolve that much it's more because of the competition with other mammals, now that they are in overpopulation because of the rabbit breeding for example, they have taken a huge advantage over their former rivals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To be fair, All lagomorphs are herbivorous, which in biological terms means that are specialist, a bit simple that others, but at the end specialist.
Not only is the competition, they also have to see the limits that each organism to take these niches, even after a mass extinction.
Look for example Dicynodonts, these were in a similar situation, being specialized herbivorous with a very advantageous form of reproduction, they survived the worst of the extinctions and with the disappearance of many of its competitors, had the world for them... However, after 50 million years, they evolved only a few varieties that even differed with each other. Instead of these, others groups with more varieties of diets were successful at long term (talking about cynodonts, dinosaurs, crocodilomorphs).
Survive not always guarantee complete diverstification.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh you're right, good example, so the herbivorous diet is a huge barrier in the diversification of a specie ? Can we assume that the humans, who went from an almost exclusive herbivorous diet to a hunting habit in a few milliion years are a counter to that theory, or human are still herbivorous ?
I was going to use the humans for denie your comment but i remember that our real diet is still debatable.
But you're right in most of the case, lagomorph would need to control fire to get that diversification in a few million years
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Still, that's the evolution of a small generalist into a large, specialized creature. Lagomorphs aren't the most specialized creatures, but they're still herbivores. If anything, rodents would be better suited to evolve into specialized forms than lagomorphs, given their generalistic nature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Striped Fickle - Tigrelaphus spp. (meaning "tigerine deer")
Greater Trudger - Mallinophidus akindenus (meaning "harmless wooly snake")
Barkbear - Phloiocuniculus folivorus (meaning "sloth-like bark rabbit")
Tree Ghump - Cornulepus dentrus (meaning "tree tusked rabbit")
Ground Ghump - Cornulepus xerus (meaning "land tusked rabbit")
Stretchook - Tentonolepus paraxenus (meaning "unusual stretchy rabbit)
Mud Trudger - Pseudophoca laspekatoikia (meaning "mud-dwelling false seal")
Spotted Wateryl - Dipodolagus ydrobius (meaning "aquatic bipedal rabbit")
👍: 0 ⏩: 1