OtherkinPhenomena: Forum

Full Version: creature in between dinosaur and bird
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Yeah, I don't know if I should shut up for a while or something <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

I'm basically writing in because I have new information on the thing that I prior identified as Fae. I've come to the point where I'm thinking of this energy as dinosaur-on-its-way-to-birdness. Over on my main blog I've identified this being as "Birdy" because I needed a freakin' name. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> It isn't like she calls herself that, though.

I seem to be shifting between different "sets" of multiple statuses, though I can share that on the Multiple subforum...later.

So right. I don't have an image host as of yet, but...I think I have some connection to this being's gender/sex status that is fairly...well, it makes things fit a bit better. What I've seen, or figured out (one of those two), is essentially that there are two different forms of this species, because of sexual dimorphism. I have some drawings, which is where the image host would come in, but I'm a bit wary of going to unknown sites at this point in my life... ^_^;

The female is larger, more muscular, heavier. Short tail (more like present-day birds); rudimentary wings sprouting from the sides of the wrists. Four limbs, birdlike claws on all four. Darker brown/mottled plumage. Cannot fly, but can climb. Strong wrists; stronger and more pronounced forelimbs than hind. Lives likely on rainforest floor. Connection in my mind to Lilith; at least to soft, owl-like, silent? fringed plumage; also to dominance.

The male is leaner, smaller, lithe, brightly colored with blue and green. Long, reticulated feathered tail for display and balance. Four limbs; longish wings sprouting from wrists with harder, shiny, scalelike feathers. Claws extending from wrist (wing/forelimb) joint to grasp branches (wing bones placed in position equivalent to human pinky, usually folded back). Narrower wrists? Glider. Lives in rainforest canopy.

Both genders have heavy, hooked beaks. The female is a hunter, closer to the ground; the male is a hunter from the air. Both may drop/crash onto prey. Males fight for mating possibilities and display; females mount and sometimes kill males. Makes the gender thing make sense.

That's as much as I've got, so far. I wanted to record it before it lapsed from my memory. What to say about it? I really don't know. Is it part of me or just a visitor? I really don't know.

I'm sick and have work in the morning, so I'll leave this here...
Does this work at all? <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#Plumage">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#Plumage</a><!-- m -->
Hey there...

Sorry for not replying earlier; as mentioned, I've been ill, which I'm still recovering from. Plus there have been some weird things going on with my computer, and I find that I feel safer away from it...*sighs* Anyhow. I did take a look at the Archaeopteryx photo -- I'm not going back to that page right now because I want to minimize the web pages I browse to -- but from what I recall, it seemed that the tail feathers in that impression were more like the fringes on male peacock tail feathers -- the individual little filaments with fringes coming off of them. What came to me, the couple of nights I saw this, was a more modern-appearing feather shape -- in which the feathers look more like modern tail feathers -- though the male's tail was articulated like the Archaeopteryx tail. I have no idea how much an articulated tail would tear up a modern feather, though.

There's also the fact that I didn't see teeth or a muzzle on either of these beings. And, Archaeopteryx doesn't have the required claws on the forelimbs. I do know that some modern birds do still have claws at the wrist joint -- though the species I'm thinking of (name forgotten, unfortunately) is tropical, and only retains the claws while juvenile.

I've been into birds since I was very young, and I did start to look up an entry on this in an older encyclopedia I was gifted with when I was six or so -- they, obviously, didn't have the newer Archaeopteryx fossil information. (I didn't finish reading the entry because I became too ill and it got pushed to the side.) But so far as I know, Archaeopteryx is -- or was -- just the oldest fossil known which was distinctly birdlike. There are later mutations like Hesperornis (I'm guessing that this is the correct spelling from popular search terms), which resembled a loon but had a toothed bill, etc. Loons themselves are rather interesting because they...if I recall correctly, I think they have dense bones, so they swim low in the water, and have odd lobed feet that indicate a different evolutionary path from most waterfowl...

Anyhow. The entry I ran across said that it was likely that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of the ancient equivalent of waterfowl... I didn't see much that had to do with bodies of water in either of my visualizations. However, there was the (warm?) rainforest component...which in itself bodes poorly for finding anything in the fossil record of this. Rainforests are damp, and bodies would decompose quickly in them; meaning that fossils are unlikely, and that even if they do exist, they might not yet be found. Of course, there's also the idea that this could have been a cool rainforest, and it was just seen as warm because it wouldn't have been cold to a feathered being. I've been in at least one cool rainforest; the reason I didn't tag it initially is that in my vision, the trees were broadleaved, not coniferous.

It was apparent that I could start at the date in which the Archaeopteryx fossils first appear, figure out what configuration the continent(s) were in at that time, and where these places would be now; try and figure out the biome that I'm thinking of, and move forward from that point. I believe Archaeopteryx was found in...if memory serves me correctly, modern Turkey?

This actually seems like it will be an enjoyable project, if a bit...well, unnecessary. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink --> I can try and get back my 'History of Earth' book from the person who borrowed it...several years ago. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> Ahhhh.....

What I'm thinking of now...well, I had been thinking of trying to find the closest living relative similar to this being that I can think of. What I have right now is "nighthawk", because of the female's plumage -- mottled, brown, dark, and fringed. Very soft-appearing. Of course, nighthawks have tiny little beaks...huge mouths, tiny little beaks...but being insectivorous would fit with not having seen strong, huge talons on either of these beings, as I'd find on a modern bird of prey.

And then of course, there is convergent evolution...in which two species can be similar but evolve along different genetic lines. Nighthawks are the way they are because they sleep on the forest floor during the day and catch insects on the wing at night. Their plumage may be fringed for the same reason owls have fringed plumage -- so that they're silent in flight. This hints at a stealth hunter, even if what they're hunting are insects. Many owls also have mottled, fringed plumage...as they sleep in the forest in the day (usually) and hunt at night.

Come to think of it...the way owls eat also hints at the feeling I'd been getting at of swallowing things whole, which I mentioned further back on this forum, while questioning if I had a snake connection. Maybe I'm looking at an ancestor of a modern owl? Which *would* drop onto prey, and *would* have 'trousered' legs. But nighthawks also swallow things whole...just not soft, plush, smooth things. I guess...owls also have much larger mouths than beaks, as well.

Maybe the foldable wing thing was hinting at something I know about owls, also -- many North American owls have one toe which can face either forwards or backwards...kind of like many parrots.

I'm limited here because I've only ever studied North American birds, in-depth...I'm not sure where the idea, then, though, of "stalking" (like a cat stalking across the floor) would have come into play. I've seen this before in my mind's eye from Gryph, who I'm counting as one of these beings...the most recent "dark" spirit visitor (keeping in mind that he can shapeshift) being the other. The first is dark and female, the second dark and likely male. But if beings who are currently human-bodied tend to humanize their "others"...maybe this is my equivalent of "humanization"...(more like "mammalization.")

When I was younger, I did walk on all fours. And the meditative visualizations I have do work best when I work as though my hands are also feet. I probably would have continued to walk on all fours into adulthood, except for the fact that my legs are (thankfully?) much longer than my arms. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Then there's the idea of "darkness" itself...being most comfortable moving unseen and unknown, except to those I trust. And my need to consciously avoid being nocturnal in order not to be. Which reminds me that I should get to bed...

Does this process mirror others' here? How did others find their theriotype and narrow things down so that they knew they were dealing with a presently living or extinct form, and not a mythical one?
Okies. So I went and looked up that older entry. It can be found here:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://forum.otherkinphenomena.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1875">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1875</a><!-- l -->

(...just in case it moves off the same page as this entry, sometime in the future.)

Strangely enough, I did find a couple of connections there which are of interest. One, the idea of sleeping in the sunlight. Two, the idea of swallowing things whole. Three, the idea of rudimentary limbs (though in the former entry I was speaking about pythons, not things like jacanas, if my recollection of the latter encyclopedia entry is correct [with jacana children having spurs on their wrist joints, in addition to or possibly in lieu of an alula...I'd have to check]).

Towards the end of my last entry in this thread, I actually forgot what I was writing about <!-- s:? --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" /><!-- s:? --> eh... But it seems that I'm looking at either: something similar to, or ancestor to, a present-day nighthawk (nightjar might be more accurate) or a present-day owl, with rudimentary forelimbs -- or in any case, four claws and wings, with the wings integrated into the claws. Which lives on or near a broadleaved forest floor. Probably sometime in the distant past, when, I'm getting the feeling, the Earth was warmer. Dark brown and tan mottled plumage to blend in with the forest floor.

I'm omitting the size thing for now (which would have made this being incapable of flight), as...well, the quail in my backyard have let me know that one can indeed be capable of flight and prefer having one's feet on the ground. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> It's also possible that I just recall these beings as large because I was one, and I felt large. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I'm sure the hummingbirds can relate. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

There are two things that don't quite fit:

One, the visualization of Gryph stalking around like a cat. It would have been possible, but it also would probably have been loud, unless there was some other adaptation for silence that I don't know about.

The other thing is having a strong sense of "taste" or "taste/smell" to be more precise. This goes against what I know of owls, whose senses of smell are so dull that they can eat skunks without a problem. A strong sense of smell and taste (as, at least, they are connected in humans) would have been...it would have been an adaptation on that genetic line that may have been lost when the species went extinct. *But*, it would have enabled digging for worms, insect larvae, small rodents, and the like. Although...how to dig for worms with feathers on your forelimbs...it goes against the idea of having any wings at all. Which is also interesting -- it would have made this animal a climber and digger, not one that could fly -- which is accurate to the first vision. Maybe the rudimentary wings were just there to let me know I was looking at a bird ancestor?

I haven't yet, in this life, seen an image of a forelimb on its way to being a wing, but not yet a wing...and it's kind of hard to imagine, to be honest.

Touch as the most reliable sense in my waking dreams (because of the uselessness of sight) is interesting. The thing that stands out to me most about this is the fringed plumage...as anyone who has been watching birds knows, they really get to know their feathers. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Preening *all* the time. The tactile softness is something that stands out to me, and I don't know why, except that maybe it was an aesthetic thing. When I encountered the later one of these, s/he did preen me a little.

The hits on "venom" and side-to-side articulation, I'm connecting with "Snakey," who would be my snake fetish. (I know, I'm so creative with the names. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->)

So...that narrows it down a great deal. There is also the point that the second one of these I encountered was a shapeshifter...though it's possible that the second one had simply assumed a form to help me along, and wasn't actually by nature what s/he appeared to be. Which is in line with the dream I had about the spirit helper who would shapeshift into different beings in order to help one along. This would make sense in the case of Bell2 (the original Bell's copy, sans memories) shifting into Shang and back again.

I'm also not entirely certain at this point of Gryph's position here...she's always been very primal, and I do sense that on some level, she is me. After all, just because many plurals don't see their others to be parts of themselves doesn't mean that it's never the case that a plural partner may not be in actuality, yourself. I think I've narrowed it down to the point that things are looking more...unified here. But I've got to go.
I just wanted to leave a note here, on how people (at least in the U.S.) seem to assume that our physical location is more important to who we are and what we should be interested in, than other places and other cultures in the world.

A while ago, I saw a presentation following the raising of a Harpy Eagle chick. I think Harpies are native to Southeast Asia? It was somewhere in a deep and old rainforest -- which I think may have been an endangered habitat. When I saw the presentation, something about the gender roles, and the mother of the chick, resonated with me. The mother was larger and stronger than the father, and she stayed behind to defend the nest and care for the chick. The father went out hunting and returned food to the nest (and at one time got chewed out by the mother for not coming back soon enough).

This started me thinking about gender roles among birds. Something that I've found about myself is that beauty is important to me, at the same time as I cannot identify as a woman. (Along with strength.) Among a lot of bird species -- at least in North America, which is the region I'm most familiar with -- the males are smaller and more colorful than the females. This wasn't true with the Harpies, who both shared the same coloring, but not the same build.

Anyhow, though. I've realized to some extent via my research on the history and cultural context of South and East Asian religions, and my own questioning; that there's more going into what exists on this world now than just the physical. (Which, of course, I'd think evident on this board.) What I've found is that if I have a past-life history in East Asia, what says that I did not also have past-life history there as nonhuman? And how would I find anything out about this if I did not think to research the beings living in those areas (extant and extinct), information on whom may be scant or unavailable in English?

I just thought I'd put that out there...
I think the concept of gender roles among birds is interesting enough to start its own topic. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reference URL's