Seeing how I am currently on sick-leave and spend most of my days trying to distract myself from the state of my mental health, I won’t pretend this one is overdue because of a busy life. Really, I have been procrastinating this write-up, because the cockatrice historically isn’t really its own being. Rather it is a synonym for ‘basilisk’. We see this even in the description given to us by the Little Brown Books:
“The Cockatrice is a less powerful but more mobile Basilisk. It turns opponents to stone by touch. The Cockatrice is able to fly. They are not intelligent.” (Monsters and Treasure p.10)
Amount: 1-8; AC: 6; Movement: 9/18; HD: 5; In Lair: 35%; Treasure type: D (some copper, silver, gold, gems and jewelry, and magic items). (Ibid. p.3 and p.22)
There is little to comment on, they are really for the most part just as the first sentence describes them. Even their need to touch their opponents to petrify and their ability to fly fit in the ‘less powerful’ and ‘more mobile’ descriptors respectively. The only additional difference is the amount you encounter. Basilisks are never in groups of more than four; a flock of cockatrices can number up to eight.
What if we take this idea, that Basilisks and Cockatrices are the same creature, seriously? With my limited knowledge of biology, I could think of three ways in which members of the same species can differ significantly:
Option 1: Sexual dimorphism
Probably best to have actual biologists describe these:
““Sexual dimorphism” means that the two sexes of a species differ in external appearance or other features. Males and females may differ in size, color, shape, the development of appendages (such as horns, teeth, feathers, or fins), and also in scent or sound production.” (1)
Basically, anything you can use to determine whether or not a given member of a species is male or female.
For some creatures this dimorphism is rather tame, different coloured feathers for ducks spring to my mind. In terms of size and shape they look (to me) mostly the same, so it is really just the feathers that give away their sex (assuming this is a strict binary, which I am not sure of).
Other creatures differ more radically. Anglerfish are the first that jump to my mind. They differ greatly in size, but also the females are the only one with the glowstick appendage, and the degree to which they fuse as part of their reproduction is very asymmetrical.
Option 2: Phenotypic plasticity
As the biologists put it:
”Phenotypic plasticity, [is] defined as the ability of an individual to alter its phenotype in response to environmental changes” (2)
So changes in physical appearance based on the situation you find yourself in.
The most well known of these is probably a chameleon changing colour, but one I personally find very interesting is locusts. These are, genetically speaking, just regular old grasshoppers. However, under certain conditions they will drastically change their behaviour (forming swarms that roam and eat everything in sight) as well as their physical appearance (changing in colour, wing length etc.).
Option 3: Metamorphosis (in this case, complete metamorphosis)
And finally:
“More than 80% of insect species, possibly representing around 60% of all animals, undergo a particularly marked form of metamorphosis in which an ecologically inactive life stage called the pupa is interposed between the larva and the adult, during which the insect's body is almost entirely rebuilt. This kind of transformation is called holometaboly or ‘complete metamorphosis', where the larval body is always markedly different in form from that of the adult.” (3)
You look like one thing, form a pupa, and turn into a different looking thing. Same species, drastically different appearances.
It is probably slightly redundant to give examples of this, but for completion’s sake: think maggots to flies, caterpillars to butterflies, larvae to bees, etc.
Though all three of these options these could be fun, I find myself preferring complete metamorphosis. My interpretation of the Basilisk is very food oriented, it looks for different kinds of rock and thus tries to petrify as many different kinds or organic material as it possibly can. The comparison to something like a caterpillar is easily made.
The Cockatrice could then, much like butterflies, be mostly focussed on dispersing eggs, for which the increased mobility is very useful. It being less durable also feels appropriate to me: there is no real need to compete over resources, so it can just fly away, rather than stand their ground and fight.
So this is the angle through which I will create a qualitative cockatrice:
Cockatrice (adult form of Basilisk)
Traits:
- medium-sized (like secretarybird), flying (like vulture), prized (like gems)
Strengths:
- Cement Vomit: They can projectile vomit a disgusting sticky substance, which quickly begins to set, similar to cement.
- Stunning Claws: Brilliant talons which cause whatever flesh they sink into to become rigid and numb.
Weaknesses:
- Eyecatching: Its crystalline feathers shimmer even in the lowest light, making them easy to spot in most surroundings.
- Destructive Independence: Unable to cooperate or accept assistance of any kind.
Ecology:
- Metamorphic Fission: Commonly emerges in sets of two from the geode-like pupa formed by a Basilisk once it has reached sufficient size; one male, one female.
- Parasitic Inheritance: The stares of their offspring would kill them. Instead they look for hosts to plant their egg on, after which they cover both host and egg in their vomit.
The 'biologists'
1. (Katherine Ralls, Sarah Mesnick, Sexual Dimorphism, Editor(s): William F. Perrin, Bernd Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen, Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2009, Pages 1005-1011, ISBN 9780123735539, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373553-9.00233-9)
2. (Juan M. Guayasamin, Tim Krynak, Katherine Krynak, Jaime Culebras, Carl R. Hutter, Phenotypic plasticity raises questions for taxonomically important traits: a remarkable new Andean rainfrog (Pristimantis) with the ability to change skin texture, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 173, Issue 4, April 2015, Pages 913–928, https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12222)
3. (Truman, J., Riddiford, L. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401, 447–452 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/46737)
Disclaimer: No biologists were harmed in the writing of this blogpost.
No comments:
Post a Comment