#kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

laurelnose · 3 years

Note

Very New to your blog and the posts are probably way old but I saw you do Witcher Biology (??) rants sometimes and Id love to hear your take, if you have one, on what monsters (namely "naturally occurring" ones like draconids and insectoids) contribute to the ecosystem if anything and whether or not they should be hunted into extinction. I was discussing it w/ a friend last night after dealing with Iocaste, the last silver basilisk, and now its smthn I'm Invested in

re monster ecosystems: I just figure theyve probably found a niche in the world by now and can eat anything smaller incl. humans but because theyve got no natural predators aside from eachother and arent hunted by anything but witchers , monsters are just breeding and eating and wldnt that damage the land? or have they made their own like, circle of life or whatever ? Ive little knowledge on the subject as a whole but the whole thing intrigues me

hi & extremely belated welcome, anon! my apologies for the length of time you’ve been waiting for this answer; I had to think carefully about how I wanted to respond to this ask, because: there’s a lot going on here. also, because I am a disaster, I ended up posting it to ao3 first while I was avoiding tumblr for a spell and then completely forgot to come back. oops. i’m sorry!! This one’s about 5000 words long, which is a lot for tumblr, so reading on AO3 may be preferable.

The two main thrusts of your first ask (how do monsters interact with the ecosystem and should they be eradicated from the Continent) are questions of invasion ecology, the study of non-native/invasive species and their effects on the environment. Monsters, having arrived on the Continent about 1200 years ago during the Conjunction of Spheres from entirely alien dimensions, are indeed technically non-native species!

However, invasion ecology is…somewhat controversial, to say the least—there are a lot of invasive species, who have a lot of different & complex impacts, and a lot of different ideas about what we might do about any of this, and it’s basically all arguing all the time, so I wasn’t really sure how I wanted to approach the topic. Not to mention that for reasons I couldn’t initially put my finger on, it seemed wrong to apply theories of invasion ecology to the Witcher monsters. We’ll get into it! There are also a couple of common misconceptions/oversimplifications of how ecology works in your second ask which I want to unpack. Hopefully I pulled this together into something that makes sense, and feel free to ask me for clarification!

Some important background facts:

Species have always been moving to and “invading” new places on their own; humans and globalization have accelerated this process into a Big Problem, as the sheer number of invasive species being introduced all over the globe strains ecosystems already under pressure, but “native ranges” are always shifting, sometimes more dramatically than you might expect. If you go far enough back in time, all species are “non-native”.

Because of this, the very definition of “invasive species” is hotly contested. This is why you’ll hear dozens of terms like introduced species, injurious species, naturalized species, non-native species, etc.; these all have slightly different connotations, but all refer to a species that did not originate in a particular location.

An introduced species is usually classified as “invasive” as opposed to “non-native” or “naturalized” if its presence significantly alters the ecosystem it invades; some people define this more narrowly as a species that causes harm to an ecosystem. “Harm” can take a lot of different forms, as every non-native species interacts differently with the ecosystem they were introduced to.

Aside from various potential impacts to human economic activity, most forms of ecological harm by introduced species involve the decline of native species, by a variety of mechanisms; invaders might eat natives, outcompete them for food, interbreed with them, carry novel pathogens, etc. Invasive species are primarily a threat to biodiversity.

Now, here’s my Hot Take:

The Conjunction of Spheres is analogous to real-life ecological cataclysms such as the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, and thus monsters are not invasive species.

The Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event saw the extinction of 75% of all species on Earth after the Chicxulub asteroid hit, including the non-avian dinosaurs. The Earth has had several disasters like this, of varying severity—the Great Oxidation Event killed almost literally everything on Earth except for the cyanobacteria who caused it. These cataclysmic extinction events completely upended existing ecosystems, altering habitats beyond recognition and leaving swathes of niches emptied of life that the survivors could evolve to exploit.

The most recent Conjunction of Spheres on the Continent is supposed to have thrown everyone living on the planet at the time into chaos and darkness; it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that the interpenetration of multiple spheres caused mass extinction of species living in the pre-Conjunction environment, similar to Chicxulub or the GOE!

But Socks, you might say, evolution works on a massive timescale! It took millions of years to fill the niches left open by Chicxulub, but it’s only been 1200 years since the Conjunction of Spheres! And you are absolutely right*, but the Conjunction of Spheres canonically came pre-loaded with new species. We actually have no proof that any of the animals we see originated on the Continent: if humans are a post-Conjunction phenomenon, why not also dogs? Why not bears? Who’s to say any of those were actually there before-hand? (The elves, I guess, but as they have not, actually, said so, there’s no proof!!)

* FTR, 1200 years is a shockingly short period of time to go from cataclysm that plunged the world into darkness and chaos to functioning medieval-era society considering how long it actually took humanity to build 13 century Europe (horses had been domesticated for at least 3000 years by that time), even if we’re not assuming that most of the ecosystem was destroyed, so, my timeline concerns here are minimal, lmfao. TIMELINE WHAT TIMELINE.

…and actually now that I think about it the three options for the origin of dogs are a) elves or dwarves domesticated them, b) humans brought dogs with them during the Conjunction, or c) dogs have existed for less than 1200 years, and I refuse to accept that dogs are practically a new invention in the witcherverse, wtf.

Anyways: we really have no idea which species are truly “native” to the Continent, or what the physical environment was like prior to the Conjunction. While monsters are not native to the Continent, monsters are also not invasive—there cannot be decline of pre-Conjunction biodiversity or harm to the pre-Conjunction ecosystem because there is no pre-Conjunction ecosystem anymore.

should monsters be hunted to extinction?

So, the thing is, I think we should try to eradicate invasive species from non-native ranges if we can; the biggest problem with that is feasibility, not morality. It’s much more difficult than one might think to eradicate an invasive species once it’s established, and we have to be very careful that the methods we choose don’t have other impacts, but invasive species are a huge threat to the biodiversity of Earth! If monsters are invasive species, then the answer is yes, they should be eradicated from the places they are not native to.

(Notably, on Earth this kind of eradication is not the same thing as extinction; it would be a local extinction, or extirpation, where the species is totally wiped out in the places it invaded but still exists in its native range. This does get way more complicated if the invasive is already extinct in its native range.)

However, I have just outlined a possibility that would make it plausible for monsters not to be invasive species. Let me also outline why I prefer this interpretation. Here is a book conversation between the sorcerer Dorregaray of Vole and Geralt:

“Our world is in equilibrium. The annihilation, the killing, of any creatures that inhabit this world upsets that equilibrium. And a lack of equilibrium brings closer extinction; extinction and the end of the world as we know it. … Every species has its own natural enemies, every one is the natural enemy of other species. That also includes humans. The extermination of the natural enemies of humans, which you dedicate yourself to, and which one can begin to observe, threatens the degeneration of the race.”

“Do you know what, sorcerer?” Geralt said, annoyed. “One day, take yourself to a mother whose child has been devoured by a basilisk, and tell her she ought to be glad, because thanks to that the human race has escaped degeneration. See what she says to you.”

–The Bounds of Reason, ch. 6

This is a, uh, incredibly unsubtle reference to a debate that has been ongoing for decades; Geralt’s stance here is one of the key arguments in opposition to wolf and bear reintroduction. What do we do about large predators that may pose a threat to humans? How do we balance preservation of the ecosystem with the safety of people who have to coexist with these predators?

I can’t fully agree with Geralt, because large predators are integral to the ecosystem, which I value for its own sake and because humans depend on healthy ecosystems. But I can’t fully agree with Dorregaray either, because Geralt is right: human life is valuable and worthy of protecting. This is an issue that India has been running into in the past ten years; as their tiger conservation efforts yield fruit, people become more likely to encounter tigers, and thus more likely to have a bad encounter with a tiger. It’s become a political struggle as rural people who have to actually live with the possibility of a tiger attack come into conflict with urban conservationists who just really want to preserve tigers (& in some incidents, some of those conservationists have been Western, which is a whole additional level of fuckery). The fact is, there isn’t a good answer to this yet! We certainly should not drive tigers, wolves, or any other large predator to extinction, but we also have to figure out a way to keep people safe. It’s something humanity still has to wrestle with.

Under this framing, which CDPR reinforced when they chose to have the Count di Salvaress defend Iocaste as an endangered species while making significant provisions to minimize the damage she could do to human life, there’s far too much baggage attached for me to say yes, monsters should be hunted into extinction. If you’re going to make monsters analogous to wolves, of course I do not think we should get rid of monsters entirely!

And frankly, Geralt doesn’t think so either, despite his hardline stance about monsters that eat humans. Sapkowski isn’t exactly an anti-conservationist; though Dorregaray is shown as out of touch in this passage, at another point the narrative sides with him calling Philippa out on exterminating a species of ermine for her fur collar, and it’s consistently put forth that Geralt’s best quality is that he doesn’t want to perform violence for the sake of it or destroy things without cause, and one of the representations of that is that he refuses to kill endangered species even at cost to himself:

“What should I say about you, who rejects a lucrative proposition every other day? You won’t kill hirikkas, because they’re an endangered species, or mecopterans, because they’re harmless, or night spirits, because they’re sweet, or dragons, because your code forbids it.”

–Eternal Flame, ch. 2

If monsters and other post-Conjunction creatures are invasive species, the nuance in this conversation is flattened, and Geralt’s refusal to kill mecopterans and hirikkas becomes a flaw rather than a virtue. Boring! I also think that one of the strongest themes in the witcherverse is the idea of all monsters being human ills; wraiths are manifestations of hatred, necrophages multiply because of human bloodshed, cursed ones are created out of malice, mages like Alzur and Idarran of Ulivo go out of their way to straight-up create monsters from scratch*, etc. Iocaste attacks humans and takes livestock because the traditional prey of the silver basilisk, roe deer, has been extirpated by human destruction of their habitat. The aeschna in Blood of Elves attacks humans because humans have altered and polluted the flow of the Pontar, hunting the aeschna’s previous food (seals) to extinction. The true monster is the actions of humans. Monsters that appeared unbidden from another dimension into a previously functional ecosystem to invade and cause problems undermines this theme; monsters that are integrated into the ecosystem and subject to the same social and ecological forces as other animals supports it.

* Idarran’s “idr” monsters from Season of Storms absolutely should be eradicated. Did the world not have enough man-eating arthropods, Idarran? Did you really have to mutate horrible new ones and release them in populated areas?? Mages are a scourge, lmfao

Additionally, one of the biggest reasons I felt like I couldn’t actually apply invasion ecology to monsters was that, whether you accept my Conjunction theory as sufficient biological justification for this or not, monsters just don’t really behave like invasive species. It’s hard to explain this because the setting is pretty brief about its ecological details, but aside from the fact that the narrative frames them like just part of the ecosystem of the world, there are never any details like “that type of flower doesn’t exist anymore because giant centipede tunneling destroyed the soil they needed to grow in.” When monsters are the aggressors, their victims are always humans, not the environment or other animals, and again monsters are themselves often treated as victims of human actions.

So I say monsters aren’t invasive species!

Which means that monsters are, regardless of their strange origins, now a part of the Continent’s ecosystem just as much as bears and wolves.

So let’s talk monster ecology.

what do monsters contribute to the ecosystem, if anything?

So, the phrase “contributing to the ecosystem” is actually super loaded, and I want to unpack that before we go anywhere else. Ecosystems are made up of organisms, and organisms interact with and impact ecosystems, but they don’t necessarily contribute to ecosystems! The implication of “contribute” is that it is possible for an organism to not contribute, and it follows from there that some organisms are not useful. This is functionally nonsensical, and also dangerous.

Conservationists talk a lot about “intrinsic value,” which in this context is the idea that we should want to keep species around just because their existence is valuable! Biodiversity is intrinsically valuable. This is important, firstly because I do believe that all species are intrinsically valuable, but also: ecosystems are so enormously complicated that we do not know the full extent of any species or individual organism’s impact, and we can’t predict what the consequences of removing any given species might be. Treating all species as intrinsically valuable is hedging our bets. All organisms affect the ecosystem, because it’s impossible for them not to, and while some species definitely have outsize impact, none of them are “not contributing,” and frankly even if some of them weren’t, it would be the absolute height of human arrogance for us to decide we could tell which ones were useless when we barely even know what most species eat. Mosquitoes are the base of the entire goddamn food chain, and you still get assholes claiming they don’t “contribute anything.” Of course, most people don’t really mean all of these implications when they use the phrase, but I don’t find it useful to talk about what species “contribute,” and avoid using that language if I can!

What I assume you mean by “what do monsters contribute” is a combination of “what roles might monsters play in the ecosystem” and “are monsters actively harmful to the ecosystem, i.e. do they cause loss of biodiversity?”

And this is difficult to answer! As I’ve said, I don’t think monsters are invasive species, and thus don’t harm the ecosystem, though we know that monsters can be harmful to humans. However, when it comes to the role they do play in the ecosystem, there isn’t enough in canon for me to do more than wildly speculate! Also, there are so so many of them, and the role of a hirikka is going to be wildly different from that of a draconid.

Just offhandedly, most of the big predatory monsters can be assumed to fill the same roles as Earth’s big predators, one of the big ones being overpopulation of prey species, which has ramifications throughout the ecosystem. Some of them are canonically ecosystem engineers, or animals that physically alter their environment (think beavers); for instance, shaelmaar and nekker tunneling. Additionally, the big insectoid colonies can’t be relying solely on naturally-occurring caves for their homes; they’ve gotta be constructing some stuff themselves. These tunnels can be repurposed as habitat for other organisms, from giant centipedes to sewant mushrooms. Necrophages, like corpse-eaters in our world, likely limit the spread of diseases from decomposing flesh (and really wouldn’t be as much of an issue if everyone would stop, you know, doing war and mass murder, lmfao). Arachasae use tree trunks and organic plant material to conceal themselves, which is likely contributing to plant reproduction in a few different ways—but the arachasae decorating essay is a different topic that I swear I will finish one day oh my god—

…anyways, feel free to ask about any specific monsters or niches if you’re curious, but if I tried to go into detail with every single potential niche/ecosystem service all of the monsters we know of might fill, we would be here all day!

Let’s talk about a couple specific things you brought up in your second ask.

> theyve probably found a niche in the world by now and can eat anything smaller incl. humans

I mean…maybe! That is, yeah, they’ve definitely settled into niches by now, but feeding is way more complicated and interesting than that.

For instance: orcas can eat basically whatever the fuck they want—orcas are fully capable of bringing down everything from fish to seals to gray whales to great white sharks. But they don’t. In the Pacific Northwest, the resident orca pods almost exclusively eat salmon, while the transient pods largely feed on seals. Orcas are kind of an extreme example, but this is something called resource partitioning and it’s a big part of how animals limit competition with one another and what enables lots of predators to coexist in one place!

We see a big fuck-off dragon thing and we assume that it’ll eat anything it can fit in its mouth, and definitely some predators work like that. But just because an animal is technically capable of eating something and deriving nutrition from it doesn’t mean that it will. Silver basilisks made roe deer the staple of their diet before the destruction of beech forests meant they had to turn to humans—which is a pretty specific dietary restriction when there should be multiple species of deer running around, not to mention everything else a draconid could be killing! And given how many types of draconid there are…I have to assume there’s some kind of resource partitioning going on to prevent them all from conflicting with each other! For instance, if basilisks prefer roe deer, maybe forktails prefer wild goats, while wyverns are mostly kleptoparasitic (stealing other predators’ kills).

And of course, not all monsters eat humans at all; harpies steal from and attack humans, so they’re a dangerous nuisance, but they don’t seem to eat them. And in the books Geralt mentions plenty of monsters which are totally harmless.

So yes, there are lots of things monsters could be eating, but it would strongly depend, and there’s a lot of interesting places one can take monster diets! Netflix decided their strigas only eat specific organs, leaving the rest of the body untouche, & I love that for her. More monsters that need a particular kind of nutrition that leads them to take only specific body parts from some kills!

> because theyve got no natural predators aside from each other and arent hunted by anything but witchers, monsters are just breeding and eating and wldnt that damage the land? or have they made their own like, circle of life or whatever ?

Absolutely—invasive species whose populations rapidly increase once they’re away from their natural predators cause the decline of native species, often by eating natives directly or competing with natives for resources. And in fact, even native species who become overpopulated can seriously damage the ecosystem (see: white-tailed deer in the United States, whose overpopulation has such negative ecological effects that some people argue we should classify them as invasive, even though they have definitely been here this whole time).

However, even if we grant that monsters are invasive, it’s a little more complicated than that for a few reasons!

Despite the apparent preponderance of them in the witcher games, most monsters are supposed to be strongly on the decline, like witchers themselves. Geralt’s profession is falling out of necessity; human development of the Continent is going to be the biggest suppressing factor in monster populations in the future. Monster overpopulation is just canonically not a problem in this universe! But even in the scenario where the Inevitable March Of Civilization isn’t threatening monster populations, there are a lot of factors that could and would limit monster populations.

(TL;DR for this next part: yeah I definitely think they’ve figured out their own little circle of life—the term you’re looking for is ecosystem equilibrium, btw!—& I’m going to take the next 1.2k to talk about how.)

For starters, predation is only one among many limiting factors that affect populations & prevent them from ballooning out of control:

food availability: If there’s not enough food, there’s not enough food! It also matters how adaptable the animal’s diet is—silver basilisks moved from deer to humans, but if the eucalyptus went extinct koalas would not switch to eating cycads.

illness and parasites: Some people argue these are more important than direct predation for limiting populations, and I am often inclined to agree. Basically, if a population becomes very dense, illness and parasites spread more quickly, creating a natural limiter on how many animals can live in any one place. The greater susceptibility of some individuals to illness or parasites also winnows down populations. Non-native species often escape a good portion of their native diseases by moving to a new range—however, given how fast bacteria and viruses evolve, 1,200 years is a pretty decent amount of time for new diseases to arise. Also, just going to drop a link to my treatise on monster parasites here. It’s gross, mind the warning at the start of the post.

mate availability: If only a certain percentage of the population is actually able to reproduce, that’ll eventually bring the total number down. RIP Iocaste’s boyfriend 😔

territory/shelter availability: Animals need a certain amount of space and certain types of spaces to survive, and space isn’t infinite! It again depends on how adaptable an animal is; rats find ways to thrive nearly everywhere, but pandas can only live where there’s bamboo. If there’s not enough space to hide from predators, reproduce safely, store food, and avoid adverse weather, the population again limits itself naturally.

natural disasters: Wildfires, drought, flooding, tsunamis, storms, etc. pick off significant portions of wildlife populations. Disasters are sporadic rather than directly linked to population like most of the other factors but these periodic blows to population and the other impacts of fire or flooding are often integral to the ecosystem (see especially: fire regimes and fire ecology.)

Now let’s talk predation & monsters! (Genuinely, I think predation is one of the most interesting things in ecology; people tend to simplify it down to things eat other things, which—yeah, but there’s so much more going on there!)

First, I wouldn’t underestimate the effects of monsters eating other monsters! Even if it’s rare for a draconid to snatch up a nekker and carry it off, the threat of a draconid doing so can have dramatic impacts; researchers found that just playing the sound of dog barks on a beach stopped raccoons from foraging for crabs for over a month after the barking stopped, leading to an increase in crab populations, even though no raccoons ever encountered a dog. This is called the ecosystem of fear (which as a term is metal as hell) and it theorizes that just the fear of predators can lead to chronic stress for prey animals, decreasing reproduction and making them more susceptible to disease. Maybe draconids in Toussaint eat only a few dozen nekkers a year, but that might cause thousands of nekkers to have fewer offspring or fall to disease. When it comes to ecosystems the direct effect is usually only a small part of the story!

Second, when we talk about a species not having natural predators, we’re usually talking about an animal that would have a predator back in its home range—lionfish, for instance, have plenty of predators in their natural range (the Indo-Pacific), but no natural predators in their invasive range (the Caribbean), so invasive lionfish, suddenly freed of a limiting factor, can run amok. However, a great white shark has, aside from orcas (who do not actually eat white sharks, they’re just assholes sometimes) and occasionally other white sharks, more or less no natural predators anywhere once it reaches maturity, and that’s fine! Lack of predation of great white sharks did not cause their populations to explode and consume the ocean. White sharks are limited by other factors.

So: it is possible that wherever draconids originated (and it’s entirely possible that “draconids” came from multiple different places, tbh) there was something bigger that preyed on them, but it’s not unreasonable to assume they were also apex predators in their previous dimension (I mean…look at them), and that adult draconids were never really preyed on by anything else! It isn’t necessarily an issue for there not to be predators of certain monsters on the Continent.

(Though, of course, we also shouldn’t forget that most apex predators are prey when they’re young—baby white sharks are snack-sized for a lot of fishes, and bear cubs and wolf pups are similarly vulnerable. Based on the size of the eggs you see in TW3 draconid nests, a basilisk is hatched around the size of a little dog, which is the perfect size for small, ballsy predators such as wolverines to sneak into a nest and snap them up—predators such as more wolverines or raptors like eagles and hawks might also come directly for the eggs.)

When it comes to smaller monsters such as nekkers, who likely weren’t apex predators in their original dimensions and would thus be subject to that lack of natural predators—there are usually specific reasons why prey species manage to avoid predation in their introduced range. Lionfish confound Caribbean predators because lionfish are covered with huge poisonous spines that Caribbean predators don’t know how to deal with.

Drowners, on the other hand, are basically just man-shaped fish; they don’t have any adaptations or defenses that would really stump a bear or a wolf. Again, bigger monsters are still probably checking the populations of smaller monsters no matter what, but there’s really no reason a bear couldn’t figure out how to eat a drowner! Unless a monster has a unique defense (e.g. scurver spines), is actively distasteful to eat (rotfiends, probably), or is just difficult to take down (nekkers in packs), most of the non-monster predators* on the Continent will have incorporated various monsters into their diet by now, or suppressed monster populations indirectly with the threat of predation or by competing with them for food. It has been over a thousand years, which is nothing evolutionarily but is still a decent period of time for mammals, who pass hunting techniques down to their babies, to figure out how to eat ghouls—especially if we’re considering that the Continent’s mammals may also be a result of the Conjunction and would thus have to have been just as adaptable as the monsters to establish themselves. And I’ve also actually talked before about how wolves specifically might be preying on necrophages!

* For reference, the non-monster predators are, considering the Continent is more or less Europe, most likely lynxes, brown bears/polar bears (in Skellige), wolverines, foxes, badgers, and a variety of large birds of prey.

So—yes, if monsters were truly overpopulating, then that would damage the ecosystem. However, canon tells us they are definitely not doing that, and there are also many factors that would prevent that from happening!

(Though I will say that some of the reasons white-tailed deer are overpopulated are that we got rid of cougars and wolves and human development creates a lot of extra habitat of the type that deer like. Given that we know many of draconids are for sure in significant danger of going extinct, and the trajectory that Europe’s wolf and bear populations followed in real life, it is possible that the Continent will have to contend with an overpopulation of some of the smaller monsters at some point as they continue to try to eradicate the larger predators, both monster and non-monsters—you think the drowner problem is bad now, wait until the bears are gone and city development has tripled the number of sewers. Yet another of those humans-make-monster-problems-worse things I am fond of in the Witcherverse!)

…whew. that was a lot of words. In conclusion: ecology is really cool & there’s a bunch of ways monsters can fit into it!!

#kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #and a bit of #witcher book blogging #asks #anonymous

42 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 3 years

Note

DROWNER TADPOLE ANON HERE sry I sent that last ask at like 2am on 3 hrs of sleep and my brain just went brrrrrr hihi tadpole drowners (I work in reptiles and my late-night brain apparently only counts larval stages outside the egg as actual metamorphosis so I left out a bunch of anurans and caecilians and their internal metamorphosis 😬. also was thinking mostly of extant stuff so didnt include lepo- and/or temnospondyls) AND PLS YES CHUBBY TABBY CHEEK DROWNERS 😭❤

ooh! thank you for returning and telling me about amphibian metamorphosis, i am enthused and delighted!!

i drew a fat drowner taddy just for you because i love you anon. he has legs because tadpoles with two legs are the best and squirmiest 💙

#somewhere on the continent there’s a market for rich and bored people who want to keep larval drowners when they’re cute and fat and bright #and it’s a Problem #kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #laurelnose art #asks #anonymous #drowners

43 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 3 years

Note

ok this conversation and the amount of times drowners have spawned for me in really shallow water in tw3 made me think of drowners with nostrils more on the top of their heads so they can stay mostly submerged but still breathe air (why they need to/want to breathe air idk) somewhat similar to an alligator. and the thought made me laugh way too fucking much. also wait what nekkers are sapient??? this is new and deeply disturbing information

ohhh i do like that!! or drowners with blowholes even? just imagine the little spouts when they come up, that’s the cutest most ominous thing I can think of

and yeah, nekkers are absolutely sapient, here’s an excerpt from Letter from an Alchemist from Scavenger Hunt: Griffin in the base game:

You wrote that your son went missing while on a voyage - and that near the place he was last seen there now lurks a nekker who wears a tattered shirt with your son's monogram sewed on it. You asked if it is possible that this nekker was your son, transformed by some spell.

After consulting the relevant literature, it pains me to inform you that your hypothesis is highly improbable, and there exists a much simpler and more likely explanation. Contrary to popular belief, nekkers are a sapient species. Like forest trolls, they will at times decorate themselves with pigment or scraps of human garments. One can with some confidence surmise that this nekker killed your son, tore up his shirt, and then put on it or some fragment thereof.

and in the Blood & Wine quest A Portrait of the Witcher as an Old Man you can find a nekker cave where they’ve been making nekker propaganda depicting their victory over trolls:

so, uh, yeah!! the awful little tunnel ogroids are sapient!!

#they’re basically trolls but smaller and meaner and they don’t want to speak human words #asks #moonlightcrazyphoenix #kaer morhen biology of monsters 101

42 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 4 years

Text

[lays on floor] my favorite game at marine field stations is “say increasingly implausible facts about the animals you’re bringing up and watch students’ faces squinch up as they try to figure out if you’re joking or not” and i can’t stop picturing Worst TAs Ever Geralt and Eskel elbow-deep in drowner corpses harvesting alchemy ingredients with a pack of trainees and geralt pauses and is offhandedly like “you can get drunk eating drowner flesh if you don’t prep it right, yanno”

trainees: that can’t be true. no one eats drowner flesh

eskel: nah, they eat them in skellige sometimes. it’s not drunkenness, geralt, it’s oxide poisoning.

geralt: d’yaeblen drunk, they call it.

trainees: *look to eskel like he’s going to be the sensible one in this madness*

eskel: *casually carving out a strip of muscle* anyways it doesn’t affect us.

geralt: *stifling laughter*

eskel: we witchers can eat drowners raw if we’re desperate. decent fallback if you get stiffed on payment and can’t afford food. *slurps down the drowner meat raw in front of god and everyone*

trainees: !?!!??!!??!!

#laurelnose.txt #geralt of rivia #eskel #like two drops of water #raised by wolves #kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #yeah this is about kæstur hákarl #also about the MULTIPLE TIMES my professors #have straight-up eaten things right out of trawls in front of me

381 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 3 years

Note

drowners related question, what are those... things between their legs? is it a loincloth or part of their anatomy? wouldn't monsters using loincloth be more sentient, so that you could maybe argue with them or sth?

it appears, based on the texture, to be, uh, flesh, ahaha.

short and boring answer: it's a character design shortcut to make drowners both look grodier and prevent anyone from having to think too hard about what kind of genitals a drowner has.

however this is my tumblr and I want to think about drowner crotches, so take that, CDPR! (frankly I think drowners probably have cloacae, but the world of fish genitalia is actually very wild and varied, so they could have a whole bunch of things. here’s a sculpin dick.) anyways, as a piece of uh, fleshliness, the possibilities for its use might include something similar to the function of pubic hair in humans (to protect sensitive areas of the skin), or possibly as a display structure to other drowners (the fins are more likely for this, but animals can have more than one type of display structure). i know that’s the evolutionary biologist’s “ritual purposes” copout answer but it is a genuinely weird bit of skin, lmao.

alternatively, going all the way back to TW1, drowners are a lot saggier and greener in general, with lots of drooping and stretched skin—in that way it might be a form of camouflage, disguising the bend of their legs and helping them blend in to river muck and grasses. aaaand then in TW2/TW3 they made them all shiny and tightskinned and blue. boooo.

if it is a loincloth—well, maybe that would indicate some form of sapience in drowners! but we’re not the only animals who dress ourselves up. decorator crabs purposefully attach all manner of items to themselves as a form of camouflage—some quite extravagantly and all-over, and some, like Pugettia gracilis, only attach camouflage to their rostrum, or nose-part, since that’s where their moving mouthparts are and they most want to disguise those. maybe drowners consider it most prudent to camouflage the babymaking facilities. or maybe they decorate themselves for other drowners, the way birds often will. i also swear there’s a fish that decorates as a form of courting behavior but i can’t think of it right now & i’m at work lol. might just be thinking of bowermakers like pufferfishes. or hey, maybe they are sapient, like nekkers apparently maybe are. i’ll take it!!

#kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #asks #anonymous #ok off curbside i’m supposed to be shelving books now lmao #drowners

28 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 3 years

Note

I've got a witcher-ish!biology question!!

Your many posts about how drowners would hypothetically breathe was so interesting and I just wanted to ask the same about sirens/merfolk (if they existed in canon..)

Like..are their very human looking noses just for aesthetics or would they functionally breathe/smell? If they have gills would they need a secondary way to breathe air when they're out of water or are they more likely to be holding their breath like reverse whales? And if they do have 2 functioning breathing methods would it be a conscious decision to use whichever is suitable for where they are or does that happen automatically?

FRIEND I AM THRILLED TO BE THE ONE TO TELL YOU THAT SIRENS/EKHIDNAE AND MERPEOPLE ARE CANON. Though canon sirens bear aggressively little resemblance to the fandom’s preferred usage for them. there are also the vodyanoy but what the fuck even are the vodyanoy. I’m not going to talk about the vodyanoy.

Sirens are canonically faking the human form to lure in prey and do not have noses or resemble humans in their true forms. So sirens can be doing whatever they want with their lungs/gills, freed from all variety of nasal misery.

Merpeople... have regular human faces. people have spent SO MANY WORDS on how and why mermaids would look like people, and frankly I do not have the energy to recount all of the mermaid thoughts I have ever been exposed to, esp. because my investment in drowners comes from my real-life fondness for horrible snappy little toad-faced amphibious creatures like cottids and batrachoidids, and this is not really at all what a mermaid is like. why would a mermaid look like a human? idk. you might as well ask why do elves look like humans? witcher mermaids aren’t trying to lure people in like the sirens (Sh’eenaz is having a bit of a problem with a human who is attracted to her) so that’s just... what they look like.

however, here are some more thoughts about being amphibious & respiration because respiration is sexy and interesting.

merpeople could be using their noses for breathing; lungfish do this, with their nasal openings connected to their throats like ours leading to their lungs, with a functioning set of gills as well. although despite their gills, most lungfish are actually obligate airbreathers and cannot be deprived of access to the surface of the water. congrats on ditching the ability to respirate where you live, idiots. it’s been working for them for about 420 million years, though.

or merpeople could be only using the noses for smell/chemoreception like most fishes, and primarily respiring through mouth/gills. either is fine!

> if they have gills would they need a secondary way to breathe out of water or would they be more likely to be holding their breath

man, the term ‘more likely’ actually does so much work in these discussions. like I say ‘more likely’ myself a lot, but respiratory adaptations are hugely varied and wild and the likelihood of any one coming about rather than any other is actually kind of impossible to quantify!

Geralt says Sh’eenaz can breathe air, and I am usually inclined to believe him. We could also consider him to be oversimplifying, in which case—both! either! it depends on how long they regularly stay out of water (which to my knowledge, aquatic airbreathers are actually much more limited by things like sun damage, skin dryness, dehydration, and temperature regulation and whether they have adaptations to deal with these things. many anabantoids like gourami are obligate air-breathers and will drown if denied access to the surface but you had still better put a gourami back in the water right quick before it shrivels up into a prune. lungfish do not have this problem because they are weirdos who roll themselves up into mud cocoons whenever the water goes away. on the other hand, humans soaked in water for too long start having issues like skin maceration (don’t image search that, it’s the breakdown of skin) so, basically, hanging out in the wrong environment is more complicated than whether or not you can breathe. this is canonical for witcher mermaids; Sh’eenaz is extremely cross about wasting her time above water because it chaps her skin).

they could be holding their breath like whales (because mermaids could be airbreathers first and waterbreathers second) or reverse whales (i.e. they store oxygen for periods of time whenever they leave the medium they can breathe). or they could be like epaulette sharks, which have an absolutely crazy anaerobic metabolism and just... deal with hypoxia. two hours at 5% of normal oxygen levels? they’re fine. that’s fine. what the fuck, epaulette sharks. also here’s a video of one doing the walking thing, because they got lil feety fins and it’s cute. fucking superb, you hypoxic little fake tetrapods. the main issue is still actually that the sun will bake an epaulette shark!

but yes, if merpeople want to be above-water for more than two or three hours at a time (provided they have adaptations to deal with other stuff), they will need a secondary respiration method of some sort. though they don’t generally seem to give that much of a fuck about humans or other things going on above-water. (Since sirens seem to split their time relatively evenly between air/water, I would guess they have two methods.)

re: the consciousness of the decision: you would have to ask a lungfish or one of the facultative air-breathing anabantoids if they think about it when they switch respiratory methods, probably. my best guess for sapients like merpeople is it’s instinctual (oxygen access is so fundamental, these things tend to be baked in) but they can also do it consciously to some extent, like when you suddenly become aware of your own breathing. my apologies. for non-sapients it’s likely 100% instinctual. oxygen is really important.

#[bill wurtz voice] THE SUUUN IS A DEADLY LAZERRR #kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #sorry sh’eenaz you’re not a monster but the sirens are #asks #anonymous

28 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 3 years

Note

Different anon but please I would love a lecture about baby and adolescent drowner care

From an ethical perspective, can I domesticate them?

the main ethical issue with normal people keeping drowners in the witcherverse, I think, is that most people would either cull juveniles post-metamorphosis (workable... I guess... but this just feels like a really shitty thing to do) or they’d eventually release the adult drowners somewhere, creating a problem for their neighbors. highly unlikely that anyone in the witcherverse would be responsibly containing the adult drowners they raised! and of course the space required for large aquatic animals and the responsibilities of keeping an animal that can absolutely kill you or people around you.

...and also like, there’s the type of personality attracted in the real world to monster fishkeeping and venomous snakes. definitely not true of all monsterkeepers or people with hot snakes, but the people keeping redtail catfish in home aquaria and free-handling their hots in public? these guys (and it’s usually guys, lmao) are the types to be raising drowners. just a little bit more money than sense, a desire to seem badass (and masculine) to others, an attraction to the feeling of control stemming from keeping a dangerous animal, often more interested in the aesthetic of something than the reality, a fundamental lack of care or responsibility for the wellbeing of their animal... these guys are just assholes! they might not always have done anything wildly unethical yet but their vibes are simply the worst.

...that’s the lecture Geralt would have ready for 99% of people trying to raise drowners. or, well, he'd probably just have a bunch of extremely cutting remarks to make before getting rid of all their drowners, lmao.

but say we’re very responsible people, you and I, and we’re gonna be the one percent of drowner keepers. what can we do with drowners?

from a practical perspective, you might be able to tame one, but you couldn’t domesticate them; domestication is an intensive multi-generational process that results in an animal genetically distinct from the origin species, and drowners most likely have long enough generation times that you just wouldn’t have time within your lifespan*. unless you were like, a mage inexplicably willing to spend a century or two on the project (relatable).

* I’m aware that the silver fox experiment lasted only about 40 years, but whether or not Belyayev’s foxes are fully domesticated is somewhat controversial, and drowners are WAY more aggressive than foxes, so I suspect there would be additional complications along the way that would increase the number of required generations.

ethically... well, two big questions are whether it’s ethical to keep an undomesticated drowner, and what you plan to do with your domestic drowners. if you can’t ethically keep an undomesticated drowner, your plan is dead in the water. no way to get from point A to point B. for the question of what you plan to do with your domestics: you should always approach intensive breeding projects purposefully. if you’re breeding dogs, you should be thinking about what you want to produce—maybe dogs that better fit a breed standard, or which are sweeter pets, or better workers, or healthier in some way—and your intentions should be ethical as well (i.e. creating extremely flat-faced cats is purposeful, but unethical because it causes problems for the cats). and you should have plans to provide for the animals you produce; you don’t get to just dump your drowners off somewhere when you’re done! that’s the bare minimum of ethical qualifications you should meet for your drowner project; some people of course will say that one should consider whether any domestication is ethical but I don’t particularly want to get into that because that argument is huge and messy lmao.

to ethically keep an adult drowner doesn’t seem difficult, if you have resources; their living requirements don’t seem very complex or particular, as they like everything from sewers to coastlines and have very generalist carnivorous diets. you basically just need to be able to maintain a large enough water source for them and have some way to protect everyone who has to interact with them. we’ll say we’re a filthy rich mage, and since drowners aren’t that dangerous if you’re prepared, we’ll just buy a tract of land with a nice body of water, fence it off, build the facilities to separate drowners into breeding pairs, provide our employees with drowner pheromones and armor, and start selecting desirable drowners.

so...what counts as a desirable drowner? I mean, I think adult drowners are charming, but very few people share my aesthetic tastes, so you’re probably not going to break into the pet market. Possibly they could be used like cormorants to fish, though there are certainly more efficient ways to fish. maybe you want to breed trainable drowners to sell to moated castles as guard animals? or maybe their aquatic nature would make them useful as search-and-rescue or retrieval animals. i think there are some possibilities here!

...as a mage in the witcher world we also have the genetic and magical knowhow to create significant physical mutations, so we could probably create a neotenic drowner that, like an axolotl, never leaves the larval stage. permanent squishfriend. domestication is unnecessary then as you can just put them in tanks and keep your fingers out of the way. just saying.

whatever you want to do with your drowners, you start by picking the most amenable drowners out of every generation and breeding those until you get a set that doesn’t want to kill people on sight, and then work on selecting drowners that can perform to your desired specifications. I think it would be possible if one had enough time to devote to it—drowners are a social species, only found in groups and known to react strongly when they see other drowners dying, implying they have an amount of intelligence and cooperative ability that can be taken advantage of and selected for over generations!

as for drowner care, the tadpoles can be treated like ordinary tadpoles—clean water, regular feeding, and be careful not to disturb the mucus on their skin. unfortunately, squishing must occur infrequently and very gently with clean, damp hands. what you do with a juvenile is dependent on whether you’re domesticating or not. if not, you should provide it access to land and continue maintaining a minimal amount of contact to let it get on with its natural drowner business. if domesticating, post-metamorphosis is when you’d want to start evaluating the juvenile’s temperament and probably start socializing and training, introducing them to as many new experiences as possible to create an adult that isn’t reactive or fearful. wear heavy gloves, probably. be sure that your juveniles have access to other drowners, as drowners are prey species for many other monsters and being isolated is a source of stress for them!

(honestly you could also try training a fully wild drowner too (see the training work zookeepers do to make sure their wild animals can easily be given medical treatment and as enrichment), you’d just always be at more risk because of the aggression.)

and voila, you have a drowner project that probably won’t get a witcher sicced on you. no guarantees about witchers who just happen to be in the area poking their nose into other business and end up smack-dab in the middle of your drowner sanctuary where they put a major spanner in your works. certain unnamed white-haired individuals are just Like That.

#kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #i’m so delighted by how much y’all are indulging my drowner favoritism #drowners #asks #anonymous

25 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 3 years

Text

i am now going to be thinking about drowner lactation for the next three weeks anyways

#kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #you know how whale milk needs to be drinkable underwater so it’s actually the consistency of yogurt?#if you didn’t i curse you with this knowledge #man. are there mammals that *don’t* do that level of parental investment?? i have to think about some things #drowners

20 notes · View notes

laurelnose · 4 years

Text

monster! parasites!

you know how a few days ago i said we weren’t going to talk about monster parasites? that was a fucking lie.

the basis of my monster parasite thoughts are: every organism comes with its own internal ecosystem that goes with them everywhere. it’s like having built-in friends! ergo, when monsters crossed over to the witcher dimension during the Conjunction of Spheres they must have brought many new and delightful parasites with them. you know what fiend manes are full of? MITES. you know what drowners got on their skin? COPEPODS. what can we do with this information? anything we want.

i promise there are no pictures below the cut. i have tried to put warnings on all my sources but click any of the links below at your own risk. warning for internal and external parasites of animals, monsters, humans, and witchers; parasites altering the behavior of their hosts; and probably general body horror. if you read the eating-liver-flukes post that’s probably a decent baseline for how revolting you will find this post.

also, super obvious bias towards aquatic parasites as referents. my degree is fisheries science not terrestrial ecology so that’s primarily what i’m drawing on even though nearly all of the witcher monsters are terrestrial. there is a TON i’m missing here bc of that bias! specifically i really wish i could talk about how parasites of invasive species often act as co-invaders with their hosts and monsters definitely count as invasive species and would have majorly reshaped ecological interactions on the Continent but i don’t know enough about terrestrial ecosystems to speculate properly. (ETA: while i still think monsters would have majorly reshaped ecological interactions on the Continent, I don’t actually think they’re invasive species anymore!) hopefully you enjoy it anyways!

it is, hilariously, canon that parasites are used for alchemy. according to The Last Wish, the Temple of Melitele’s grotto grows a bunch of different “rare specimens—those which made up the ingredients of a witcher’s medicines and elixirs, magical philters and a sorcerer’s decoctions” and some of those specimens are, uh, “clusters of nematodes.” nematodes being parasitic roundworms. this is really funny because it’s so fucking weird. also everything else in this description is a plant or a fungus and nematodes are definitely animals? i choose to believe the world makes sense and nematodes aren’t plants in the witcherverse. therefore parasites are alchemical ingredients, it’s canon, give me more witchers digging through monster intestines in search of worms and put a nematode colony in the basement of corvo bianco please and thank you

this actually leads right into my personal favorite drowner headcanon (hello yes i’m tumblr user Socks Laurelnose and i am always thinking about drowners)—you know those bits where drowners kind of have red blotches in their skin? those are nematodes, actually, because i said so. the reference is Clavinema mariae, a nematode that infests English sole. the worms are basically harmless but they’re dark red and you can see them through the skin. it freaks people out and makes it hard to sell sole. (IMAGE WARNING: a picture of an infected flatfish. it looks mostly normal but there’s a dark red lesion near the fin.) said lesion is probably a coiled-up Clavinema. sole have so many of these, it’s not even funny (PDF article link, IMAGE WARNING for worms visible underneath skin of flatfishes. relevant images pointing out exactly how many worms on page 5). “but the red parts of drowners could just be flushed from blood”—no. worms.

okay that was my main specific-parasite-for-specific-monster headcanon (except also succubi probably have a unique species of lice for their hairy legs. but that’s barely even a headcanon, basically all terrestrial vertebrates have a unique species of lice.) i wanted to start with it because i think that everyone should feel free to arbitrarily assign a totally benign but conceptually gross worm to their favorite monsters. why not, yanno? also it probably sets the tone for the rest of this post.

carrying on: “what monsters might have nematodes, besides drowners,” you may be wondering? probably all of them! all of them are full of nematodes. nematodes are fucking everywhere. allow me to share a deeply unsettling quote from nematologist Nathan Cobb:

“In short, if all the matter in the universe except the nematodes were swept away, our world would still be dimly recognizable, and if, as disembodied spirits, we could then investigate it, we should find its mountains, hills, vales, rivers, lakes, and oceans represented by a film of nematodes. The location of towns would be decipherable since, for every massing of human beings, there would be a corresponding massing of certain nematodes. Trees would still stand in ghostly rows representing our streets and highways. The location of the various plants and animals would still be decipherable, and, had we sufficient knowledge, in many cases even their species could be determined by an examination of their erstwhile nematode parasites.”

jesus christ! thanks nathan, I hate it. nematodes are usually both benign and microscopic, but we’re talking witchers, we want some parasites we can fuckin get our hands on. sperm whale placentas are sometimes infested with nematodes up to 28 feet long but only a centimeter in diameter (Wikipedia link, no images). like an incredibly awful spaghetti! we don’t really seem to know if this bothers the sperm whales. also, i unfortunately do not know enough about the size of whale organs to tell you how big the placenta is in relation to this worm. the point is: real big monster? REAL BIG NEMATODES.

moving on from nematodes—okay, you know, since i mentioned eating deer liver flukes at the start of this post, let’s just go there. real life flukes max out at about 3 inches long, but hypothetical monster flukes could be much bigger and equally edible if desired. (if you’re wondering what a liver fluke would taste like: the flukes feed on the liver and they have very few organs of their own, so they would taste basically just like liver, just also long and flat like a fruit roll-up. if you’re going there, a witcher should not eat any flatworm live. if they’re digging them out of cockatrice livers or whatnot they should kill them before munching or save to cook later. it would probably be safe to eat one live, but you know that cliche “their tongues battled for dominance”? handling a live flatworm is like a handling very strong and energetic tongue complete with slime, okay, it wouldn’t be nice.)

parasites often need more than one host to complete the life cycle—for instance, Leucochloridium paradoxum (VIDEO WARNING: you may have seen this, it’s the one that makes snail eyes pulsating & green) has a bird stage and a snail stage, and it makes the snails look and act really weird in order to attract the birds. parasites altering host behavior to attract the next host in the life cycle is pretty well-documented; for instance, there’s an eye fluke that can make fish swim near the surface where predators can eat them (New Scientist article link, images of a microscope slide & a normal-looking fish) and a tapeworm that does the same and makes the dark silver fish turn white (JSTOR article, no images). i posit that at least some monsters are accompanied by “ill omens” of animals looking or acting strangely because they become infected with a stage of one of the monster’s parasites—usually, the mechanism is that internal parasites lay eggs that are passed in feces & transmitted that way. witchers who are up on their parasite ecology might be able to identify what monster is hanging around by observing exactly what kind of freaky-looking animals or animal behavior is going on around the area!

(if geralt is involved you may desire to have him explain this totally non-supernatural mechanism for abrupt animal appearance or behavioral changes at excruciating length to the chagrin of all present. or maybe that’s just what i desire. it would be funny okay)

potentially even more hyperspecific application of dual-stage parasites: there’s a dinoflagellate parasite that, when it infects crabs, makes the meat chalky and bitter like aspirin (Smithsonian link, images of healthy crab and microscope slide). geralt hunts down dinner, digs in, and immediately sighs and grabs jaskier’s portion away from him to the poet’s complete bafflement before going to get his swords because judging by the flavor there’s definitely a shishiga nest in this forest.

like. parasites are one of THE most hyperspecific things in biology. the majority of them have very specific hosts and life cycles, many of them are completely unique to a species, if you think a fictional parasite is too specific to be plausible you’re probably wrong, make it even more specific. “the witcher monster lore is so hyperspecific lol” IT AIN’T TRULY HYPERSPECIFIC UNTIL YOU CAN IDENTIFY EACH MONSTER SPECIES BY ITS UNIQUE PARASITIC LOAD, OKAY.

and, with regards to behavior-affecting parasites, before anyone brings up Cordyceps (Ophiocordyceps, as of 2008): yeah that sure is a thing! if you weren’t aware, just a couple of years ago we found out it actually is not a mind control fungus!! it bypasses the brain entirely and affects the muscles (Arstechnica article, Atlantic article—photos of fuzzy ants and electron microscope pictures of fungi). or as Ed Yong puts it, “The ant ends its life as a prisoner in its own body. Its brain is still in the driver's seat, but the fungus has the wheel.” which is. significantly worse than the brain thing. awesome!! i bet there would absolutely be similar fungal parasites of endrega and arachasae. real Ophiocordyceps still very much does not affect humans, but you know what, if plants can be cursed into becoming archespores and cultivated by mages i see no reason why mages could not also curse endrega fungus to affect humans, just saying

aaaand quickly back to hyperspecificity: monsters in different geographical areas having different abilities because of their symbionts. forktails in vicovaro acquire a bioluminescent symbiont in their diet that forktails in other parts of the continent can’t get, and they can create flashes of light? that’s sure gonna fuck a witcher on Cat up when he comes in the cave expecting a normal forktail. (geographic location affecting bioluminescence is a thing that actually happens in midshipman fish—Wikipedia link, no parasites.) geographically-dependent symbionts can also produce different toxins and such for their hosts! this isn’t exactly a parasitism thing per se (although parasites are also symbionts because ‘symbiosis’ refers to two organisms in close association not two organisms in positive association) but like. it’s cool okay ecology is so cool

writing fic and tired of all these same-old monsters-of-the-week? quick and easy way to spice up either the horror factor or just make the hunt stand out slightly: just add parasites!! i know i’ve read fics where monsters were described with distinguishing old wounds. you can do the same with parasites! i would fucking swoon over a detail like an ancient water hag’s eyes glowing in the dark, one of them marred by a dangling parasite—geralt notes the blind spot and presses his advantage. (Wikipedia link, no images: this one is referencing an aquatic copepod called Ommatokoita.) also, please put barnacles on skelliger drowners, i want it so badly. just—some percentage of monsters should be Extra Grody on the inside and/or the outside, that’s how nature works. spicing up a mundane hunt by making the monster a little extra gross for its species is Valid, is what I’m saying.

also, every single time frozen specimens with obvious fungal/ectoparasite infections come into the lab we absolutely always take extra close-up pictures of those suckers and make sure everyone else gets to see them. witchers bringing field sketches and notes of the weirdest shit they found on the path back for winter. lambert declares they’ll never know if this alleged fiend tumor was a fungus or mange because geralt sucks at drawing. eskel, the man who hauled a katakan corpse all the way up the mountain so he could dissect it, produces actual skin samples of his own encounters for examination, possibly in the middle of dinner. this elicits mixed reactions.

quick detour into preservation, since I went there—witchers are probably immune to parasites that infect humans by virtue of having pretty different biology to begin with, and probably immune to parasitic infections from other sources by virtue of superhumanly boosted immune systems and all the poison they put into their bodies on a regular basis. picking up a monster parasite would probably not be a big deal for witchers, either in that they have total immunity or that they would only be minimally and briefly affected, but the field of monster biology is likely such that they probably just don’t actually know what would happen to them in the majority of cases. this has potential as a source of battle stories and/or stories intended to freak out trainees, i think. therefore, out of caution, a witcher harvesting/preparing parts for alchemy might want to be sure to treat them first. personally i think all monster parts should be preserved immediately anyways to avoid attracting necrophages, and given that alchemical concoctions in witcherverse are alcohol-based, preservation in strong alcohol is probably the best way to maintain potency and kill basically everything. (cons: alcohol is SUPER heavy and jars are fragile. tissues or organs which are thicker than perhaps half an inch or an inch require additional preparation for the alcohol to penetrate properly. other preservation methods are more efficient for travel. depends on how soon your witcher intends to use or offload their stash.)

also, here’s an absolutely wild marine parasite that would make it worth a witcher’s while to make certain everything was dead! pearlfishes are long eel-like fishes that live inside the anus and respiratory organs (which are attached to the anus) of sea cucumbers, and they have pretty nasty teeth (PDF article link, IMAGE WARNING: dissected sea cucumbers literally stuffed to the gills with pearlfish). the highest number of pearlfish discovered in a single sea cucumber was sixteen (ResearchGate article, free PDF; no images). a different fact: we discovered tiger sharks eat each other in the womb because a researcher got bitten by a fetal tiger shark while he was dissecting the mother (NYT link, no images or parasites). what i’m saying is: parasites are often very small relative to the host and usually harmless to things rummaging around inside, but what if the monster’s parasites were also monstrous. give me a monster that has to be very dead or when you start rummaging around for alchemy ingredients the things in its intestines will lunge out and bite you.

what happens if a human becomes infected with a monster parasite? bad things, probably, i mentioned before that parasites in the wrong host, if they don’t just die, often super fuck things up internally (if you get tapeworms outside of the intestine where they’re supposed to be... it’s not good y’all. CDC link, no images). host-jumping for parasites is actually fairly rare since most of them are highly specialized for their hosts, but it does happen. humans are very not my strong suit so i’m not going to dwell on this but it is entirely possible that something like necrophage infestations or monster-contaminated water sources or just being a little too involved on a witcher’s monster hunt could produce strange parasitic diseases in humans. up to you how well-known and/or how clouded in superstition these effects might be! opportunities for hideous whump? gross body horror? messy and horrifying parasite-driven behavioral changes? terrifying and potentially prolonged uncertainty over what the issue actually is because of minimal information about parasites? the decision whether or not to dose with a witcher potion? excellent possibilities.

okay last one, just because i think it would be fun: myxosporeans and sirens. Myxos are a parasitic relative of jellyfish that produce whirling disease in baby salmon. whirling disease causes neurological and skeletal damage and has a pretty high mortality rate, but it also makes infected fish do this, well, whirling behavior and it’s honestly fascinating. (video link: a pretty normal-looking young trout spinning like a fuckin top). imagine a siren doing that in the sky. i just think myxos are neat!

tl;dr: extra grody hyperspecific biology of monsters!!!

#kaer morhen biology of monsters 101 #fic reference #parasites cw #VERY parasites cw #body horror cw #i have a bunch of new followers who i think came for library content and to you i am so sorry #half the time i am yelling about libraries but the other half of the time i am yelling about the GROSSEST bio shit

158 notes · View notes