Asura may not waste time with pregnancy

[Ardid.7203]

> @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > > @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > > That said, asura seem to be a type of rodent, so if we pull any similarities out of newborn animals to newborn asura, it'd likely be in the form of newborn rodents.

> >

> > They are part-reptilian, not rodent, dear König.

>

> Nope. Per one of my above statements, Anet confirmed they're mammals. They completely lack any scales to be heard of, and have hair anyways. Furthermore, their noses are closest to typical anthropomorphic rodent noses.

 

Putting aside the fact that we are talking about totally fantastic zoology here... They don't have rodent characteristics. Given they don't lay eggs, they can be similar to Marsupials, Eulipotyphla (hedgehogs, shrews, moles, solenodons) or Scandentia (treeshrews). These later ones show species with binocular vision and hardly differentiated teeth, which would be important classification criteria in IRL. Finally, IMO Strepsirrhini (lemurs) are really similar to Asura in their general morphology, although they have differentiated teeth.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

asuran teeth are those of insectivores. Look at some real life examples (hedgehogs come to mind). Which would be a good choice for a cave dwelling mammal species.

[RazielSpecter.6295]

> @"Lametoile.7394" said:

> Yeah sure. Why even bothering with the idea that asura may be being who can express love and care toward their progeny just like any sentient race? Let's imagine them as monster mad scientist who put their child in tubes and treat them like living stock cause they don't want to be bother by biology instead!

> Also, having them create their own babies in lab?... that's atrocious.

>

> I find the very idea highly disgusting. Asuras are not monsters. They are not all about science and technology, they are living and feeling beings too. No matter how skilled they are.

>

> This is not fun at all. It's inhuman. I understand why such an idea would appear. It's something that can be seen in sci-fi works. But asuras are not human, and I don't believe for one second the majority of them would treat life and procreation so lightly and contemptuously.

 

Asuras arent human

[Ardid.7203]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> asuran teeth are those of insectivores. Look at some real life examples (hedgehogs come to mind). Which would be a good choice for a cave dwelling mammal species.

 

Sorry to be pedantic, but the "insectivores" as a mammal taxonomy don't exist anymore, that is why I listed those weird names in my previous post: they are examples of what the order "insectivores" used to put together. And not all creatures that eat insects have the same teeth.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

true, not all have the same teeth. But some teeth are more typical for insect eating species. Like the teeth of asura.

 

[norbes.3620]

The insects in GW2 arent exactly small so i would not abondon this idea out of nothing. Some glowing bugs are BIGGEr than Asura so it propably is pretty normal to eat them. the Setting cant be compared to RL in this matter cuz regarding the growth of These bugs i would say it wont be difficult for asura to Programm Golems to herd some for lifestock

 

[Kovac.4372]

Maybe asuran babies are just really tiny when they come out

[MithranArkanere.8957]

One thing is for sure, I would not want to be an asura female. > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > That said, asura seem to be a type of rodent, so if we pull any similarities out of newborn animals to newborn asura, it'd likely be in the form of newborn rodents.

>

> They are part-reptilian, not rodent, dear König.

 

Not only has anet confirmed they viviparous and mammals, if one looks at them morphologically (the only way we can look at videogame characters since we can't analyze their DNA), they are clearly more related to mammalian humanoids like ogres and dredge than to reptilian creatures like krait.

 

One thing is for sure, asura give birth to live young, and there's no sign mothers die in the process, so it has to be survivable.

Maybe asura kids have rather elongated heads when they are born, maybe asura have to undergo cesarean every time, maybe a lot of things stretch in the process, maybe they have some unknown method. We do not know.

[Ardid.7203]

They just install a mini Asura gate and that is.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> One thing is for sure, I would not want to be an asura female. > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > > @"Konig Des Todes.2086" said:

> > > That said, asura seem to be a type of rodent, so if we pull any similarities out of newborn animals to newborn asura, it'd likely be in the form of newborn rodents.

> >

> > They are part-reptilian, not rodent, dear König.

>

> Not only has anet confirmed they viviparous and mammals, if one looks at them morphologically (the only way we can look at videogame characters since we can't analyze their DNA), they are clearly more related to mammalian humanoids like ogres and dredge than to reptilian creatures like krait.

>

> One thing is for sure, asura give birth to live young, and there's no sign mothers die in the process, so it has to be survivable.

> Maybe asura kids have rather elongated heads when they are born, maybe asura have to undergo cesarean every time, maybe a lot of things stretch in the process, maybe they have some unknown method. We do not know.

 

or maybe asuran newborn have tiny heads with tiny brains and the brain development really kicks off in their first year? Who says that every species goes down the human road of 'make the head as big as possible'?