Predator Culture, Biology And Technology

[damagecase]

Lets try this again.
Previously from me:[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)] Wanted to start a thread about Predator flavor. What I mean to do is share some ideas about pred tech and physiology/psychology to ad meaningful depth to our beloved hunters. Now I know part of their appeal is the mystery that surrounds them but honestly if more depth to the charactor isn't created, its becoming a boring horror trope and nothing more. Maybe it already has. In any case, lets hear some ideas.[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]I'll start I guess. I have theorized that the preds may have multiple nictating membranes, similar to what a cat has, that allow their eyes to see different spectrums of light. So rather than using tech to change their vision, they can do it at will biologically. Now how I came about this idea ws really backwords but I was thinking about how such a species as advanced as a predator is could become that advanced without a written language. Why I say no written language is what good is writing a word when you can only see heat, biologically. We know the preds have a written language from the movies. So, if there only mode of vision is infared, how could it develop? Therefore, I am making an assumption that they must be able to see in different spectrums without the aid of technology.[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]From Zuckuss: [/background][background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]This making more sense now you are just thinking of expanding the idea of predators.I will throw some idea's in the air with you , so you are thinking bio's are an option to seeing?[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]There homeworld they can breath and are probably walking around without bio's on so i guess they get around without them.I think the original vision without the mask the p1 had was terrible looking to agree with you.I think the story would have to go a bit more real in what they see.They couldnt be spaceship making aliens thats for sure.The only thing i think they are barbarians by nature, the super predators were very much tech predators.I could see them doing anything to win the fight and vision would be one.[/background]

From Me: [background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]Well the bio could still do all kinds of cool things. I mean it could enhance vision, have a heads-up display with environmental readings, facilitate better respiration, help keep their eyes lubricated, protection in combat and from environmental hazards, enhance hearing and smell/taste. I mean a lot of predators on earth rely on smell as much or more than sight. Look at dogs and sharks. They're perfect examples. [/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]As to the culture, I think they may exist in a cast society that revolves around their technology. We always see them as hunters but what if, rather than hunting, they are collecting for a higher purpose. I think I read somewhere that, for example, DNA stays well preserved in teeth. Maybe they take the head/skull of their prey to collect naturally preserved DNA samples to return home with and use in experiments. It's already been explored upon that they use xenos in what has been explained as a kind of tribal ritual. My question is, what do they use to complete the xeno life cycle away from earth? Do they rely on some native animal on some distant planet? We know for a fact that life may exist on other worlds but those worlds are far and few in between. What if they take the human DNA from the most worthy of our species (worthy meaning strongest and most apt to survive) and use it to clone humans to be hosts for the xenos?[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]From Me: [/background][background=rgb(24, 24, 24)] I mean preds are so flat flavor wise. And it drives me nuts. We have two pretty good first movies, a gazillion comics and novels and the last three movies are just miserable to non pred fans. And the biggest thing is, they have become too main stream. Too recognizable. Theres an entire world to explore if people stopped being so damn lazy. The comics and novels are fine, although usually lacking in creativity and it can be partly attributed to the artist/writer trying to keep the preds mysterious. The time for mystery has passed. Vampires and werewolves went through the same kind of evolution.[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]I hope to bring some of those ideas up over the next few days. [/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]From Lflank: [/background]I have always assumed that Preds are venomous. Most organisms with fangs are. The teeth are not very large and the mandibles are not very strong, so they'd need an alternative method of killing prey.

The thing I have disliked most about the direction the series has taken is that the original "hunter" aspect has been lost. Preds have been turned more into serial killers than hunters. The latest movie depicted Preds who were acting more like guerrilla fighters than like hunters (one of the inspirations for my fan film "Predators: The Hunt" was to re-do the latest movie as if it were based on hunters, not fighters). "Hunting" and "fighting" are two entirely different things. I think much of the concept of the original 1987 movie has been lost.
From Estelle: [background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]In the original 1987 screen play novel, ( Monette.) there is quite a bit of in-site into the Predator already given; his religious/spiritual beliefs ( concerning life and death as he sees it), his longevity, his emotional hardwiring,why he REALLY collects skulls and backbones ( It's not to please females..what a bunch of, 'Darkhorse' bullsh*t!!)..etc. It's all there. There really was, from the very beginning NO NEED for "expansion". One just has to read between the lines, the details are there, always have been.[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]Most of the "flavorings" given in the DH comics and novels, run contrary to the Predator of 1987. The Predator, in essence was a hunter, naturalist and specimens collector. Not the warrior-race, human side-kick having, maniac killer-freak, we see in the DH novels and comics.[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]As far as Predator tech. goes, there really wasn't much given on it, as far as the, whys and hows of its functioning in screen-play novel. So, maybe this is something that could have some light shed on it, but I don't thinks it's necessary.[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]IMO, There is a thin line between "expansion" ( or "Flavoring") and "bastardization". If one, must "Flavour", I would say please keep in mind the 'original concepts' behind the Predator. Please don't go the route 'DarkHorse' took, tossing out founding concepts and handing us some bastardized version of the Predator...but, in their defense, I must thank them for calling their version of Predator-kind, Yautja! That way, whenever I read the word Yautja, I know I'm not dealing with the Predator kind. [/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]From Lflank: [/background][background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]I've always thought of the Predator as a sci-fi version of the Great White Hunter type in Africa circa 1910, risking his testosterone-poisoned neck with his trusty bolt-action rifle to mount the heads of the most dangerous animals on his wall so the whole world would know he had done it.[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]But the idea of a naturalist specimen-collector is one I had not thought of. Were the Predators actually just Darwins, exploring new lands and collecting specimens for their natural history museum back home? It's interesting. I think the actions of the Pred in the movie (deliberately targeting those who were most able to fight back, and particularly saving the best one for last and going mano-a-mano with it) indicates more of the testosterone-poisoned big game hunter than the scientist-collector type, but it is an interesting idea anyway--and after all many of the British big-game hunters ostentatiously donated their specimens to be mounted in museums (usually with self-aggrandizing plaques about how they had shot it). [/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]From Estelle: LFlank, I think it would be fare to say that the predator is, was, a big game hunter.[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]That's how I see him as well.[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]I see this in no way taking from his " naturalist" aspect. The trill of the hunt was no doubt a[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]testostrogen driven test of skill. But when it came to the trophies, the skull and spine. [/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]The predator was searching for that devine spark that was the essence of man kind. [/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]The predator felt it was located within the skull and spine..that's why he focused so much on them and cast off the rest of the [/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]body as trash. I would love to get your opinion on the book once you'ge read it. [/background]

• Like This

 

[damagecase]

Ok for anyone still around who made it through all that, let me explain. Folks were impassioned and the original thread went way off on a tangent. Names were called and Usurper, well he usurped the thread...lol. However it was his call as mod and I am completely cool with his decision to lock up the previous thread. However, we still have plenty of predator ideas to go over and bounce off each other, at least I hope we do, so lets get back on topic and try and stay there.
And for any new people, the above is essentially where we made it before the wheels fell of as it were...lol.

 

[damagecase]

All right enough preamble. Couple things I would like to respond too. First Lflank's idea about the predator being venomous. We av no idea what they eat to begin with but speaking from and evolutionary stand point, venom has two major biological functions on earth: 1)To subdue prey 2) a defense against predation. Could they be venomous? Sure but it doesn't strike me that a Predator needs either of the to primary functions. One kind of tertiary functions of venom here on earth is to aid in digestion. So I could see that. One other point about the fangs being a venom delivery system: they would most likely become more fragile.

 

[damagecase]

To Estelle: I just picked up the Predator novel and will read as soon as it arrives so I'm up to speed on what your talking about. I will say this however, It is not my intent to change the stories that have already been written or films already released. What I'm trying to do is make sense of it all in some sort of continuity. It drives me nuts when directors care more about the next big explosion or blood splatter than their story making sense. So I'm just kinda cleaning up the mess, or at least trying to. And when I do make a redaction on previously held idea, I'll try and justify it properly.
Let me illustrate from one of my previous points: Written language. The ability of the predators to be a space fairing race, capable of incredible technological feats immediately implies a written language. Further we know from the previous predator movies that they use some sort of symbol based alphabet. Like all things, this would take time to develop. Now to my point: If a predator's vision is merely heat based, how could they develop this written language? This is a huge plot hole for me and the way I filled it is that predators actually evolved with the ability to view the world in different light spectrums through use of multiple nictating lenses. How or why would a species have this adaptation? Well perhaps the predator home world was/is a planet that revolved around a binary star. And each star gave off its own distinct light spectrum and to survive, the predator had to be well equipped for both. Maybe there are three or four stars relevant to the preds home world and for each star through ions of evolution, the predators adapted and evolved for each. It just an idea.

 

[Hippie]

'We av no idea what they eat to begin with'
We at least know that they are meat eaters from Pred 2 and his taste for beef. But does he prefer it with a glass of red?

I am also liking the thought that they are hunters rather than warriors.

The mysteries surrounding preds is one of the best things for me. By the end of P1 I was absolutely thrilled by what I had just seen but I still knew sod all about the creature. It didnt matter. I believe that most people prefer it that way. Its the mystery that keeps us pinned. Would jack the Ripper be so infamous if we knew who he was and why.

Questions questions. Of course most of them will never be answered and in my oppinion never should.
C.

 

[damagecase]

Lol. I forgot about the beef thing. Honestly I always though it odd that they don't eat people. The whole eat what you kill hunter's ethic.

As to the idea of ambiguity. Well its great when you don't know the devil. But this devil we all know very well. And I think the predator story as a whole is beginning to get strangled by its own ambiguity.

As to the analogy to Jack the Ripper, well the Ripper was more likely than not human which means there is an entire story there we are already familiar with whether or not we know the particulars.

I will say this though, it is the mystery that draws us and keeps watching/reading. But I'm trying to look at the predators as more of a budding classical monster, in the vein of vampires and werewolves were their existence, in the context of fiction, has strong ties to our own internal fears much the same way that vampires feed on our fear of disease and mortality and werewolves feed on our fear of our own bestial nature.

 

[Estelle]

Dan, I've always pondered upon the same thing. How in the heck could the Predator see/read the characters on his
wrist panel, when -on earth and unaided by his bio- his eyesite seemed so limited. I always figured that the digit display
was designed to be visible to him dispite his seemingly poor vision. Another theroy I always held is similar to yours.
Perhaps, the predator's eyesight was effected by the earth's unique light spectrum, and depending on where he happens to be
located in the universe, and what type of light is available, his natural vision could be better or worse than
what it was on earth. For some reason, I have always felt that a preds
eyes are " sensitive " to various light waves and spectrums. Even before they became a space faring race they used the
stars to navigate by.
~Estelle

 

[Lflank]

All right enough preamble. Couple things I would like to respond too. First Lflank's idea about the predator being venomous. We av no idea what they eat to begin with but speaking from and evolutionary stand point, venom has two major biological functions on earth: 1)To subdue prey 2) a defense against predation. Could they be venomous? Sure but it doesn't strike me that a Predator needs either of the to primary functions. One kind of tertiary functions of venom here on earth is to aid in digestion. So I could see that. One other point about the fangs being a venom delivery system: they would most likely become more fragile.

I am thinking something along the lines of a spider or scorpion. Like a spider, the Pred has a small mouth with small teeth, and jaws that don't appear very powerful. They can't use their teeth to tear and rip flesh like a lion or croc does. So it makes biological sense to me that the fangs are used to inject a venom that paralyzes, kills, and then liquifies the tissues of the prey, so it can then be sucked up as a sort of soup, through the small mouth, just like a spider or scorpion does. Biologically, nearly every organism that has fangs in its mouth, uses them to deliver venom.

I have no idea why on earth you would think venom-delivery fangs would evolve to be more fragile . . . . ?

As for defense, that's not what most fangs are used for---indeed venomous snakes do not even inject venom about half the time when they bite defensively (called by snake afficionados a "dry bite"). Venom is, in the animal world, first and foremost a food-getting device.

 

[Lflank]

If a predator's vision is merely heat based, how could they develop this written language?

I'm not sure this would be a problem------different "inks" would have different IR signatures, and be entirely visible under infrared. Indeed, some human "invisible inks" are made visible by IR or UV light.

 

[damagecase]

Estelle I do like your idea of their vision being scued by the environment. Makes for an interesting handicap for a hunt. I think we need to discuss this more.

 

[damagecase]

Lflank, regarding the fragileness of fangs, most venomous snakes have multiple fangs just for the purpose of replacing one when it breaks. They're fragile because they are hollow so as to inject the venom like a syrenge. ( I think you know and understand this but I want to make certain.) My only other arguement against this idea, strangely enough comes from scorpions here. You can directly judge the toxicisity/potency of a scorpions venom based on the size of their claws. For example the empiror scorpion has massive claws and very weak venom. Conversly the yellow tailed scorpion has tiny claws and one of the nastiest chemical cocktails around. Of course all this is relative and since we have no idea of what kinds of organism developed parallel to the predators or coexhist in the predators natural environment so we really don't know if a predator is a large creature or not, relative to its environment. But when I look at a predator, I personally doen't see an animal that plans on using venom to take its prey. I could, however, see them using it as a digestive aid, similar to how scorpions and spiders use it. There's little doubt that a bite from a predator to a human, regardless of the potency of venom, would seem to like be fatal, just based on the sheer mass of the predator. Definately an idea worthe exploring further.

 

[damagecase]

Estelle I also like the idea of them viewing different light spectrums and using them as kind of a stepping stone to become a space faring race. This was kinda my thought with the nictating lens idea. That because of this environmental adaptation, predators became more aware of their place in the universe, if from nothing more than viewing their world through multiple facites. And this led to an increased knowledge base and ultimately an un matched evolutionary advantage.

 

[Lflank]

Lflank, regarding the fragileness of fangs, most venomous snakes have multiple fangs just for the purpose of replacing one when it breaks. They're fragile because they are hollow so as to inject the venom like a syrenge. ( I think you know and understand this but I want to make certain.) My only other arguement against this idea, strangely enough comes from scorpions here. You can directly judge the toxicisity/potency of a scorpions venom based on the size of their claws. For example the empiror scorpion has massive claws and very weak venom. Conversly the yellow tailed scorpion has tiny claws and one of the nastiest chemical cocktails around. Of course all this is relative and since we have no idea of what kinds of organism developed parallel to the predators or coexhist in the predators natural environment so we really don't know if a predator is a large creature or not, relative to its environment. But when I look at a predator, I personally doen't see an animal that plans on using venom to take its prey. I could, however, see them using it as a digestive aid, similar to how scorpions and spiders use it. There's little doubt that a bite from a predator to a human, regardless of the potency of venom, would seem to like be fatal, just based on the sheer mass of the predator. Definately an idea worthe exploring further.

You neglect that whether a venom is "potent" or not is dependent entirely on what is being bitten--but it's always "potent" to the prey. Emperor scorpions have "weak" venom when that venom is used on humans--but their venom kills their prey. Funnel web spiders are virtually harmless to most mammals, but they are lethal to primates just because of a quirk of biochemistry. So whenever we talk about a venom being "weak" or "strong", we need to ask "against what?"--but their venom is ALWAYS lethal to their intended prey. A Pred venom may be no worse to a human than a bee sting, but still be utterly lethal to its prey. ( don't know why you would think a non-venomous Pred bite would be lethal to a human through mechanical damage---the mandibles are noticeably thin and appear to have few muscles, while the non-mandible teeth are very small and not particularly fearsome. Certainly they can't even compare, pound for pound, with a lion's bite or an alligator's, or even a German shepard's.)

There is of course a better explanation for why a predatory animal with very weak teeth and jaws doesn't use venom to kill its prey---the same reason humans have. They use technology (ranging from rocks to plasma cannons) to do it instead. That would make Predator evolution very similar to ours. But as I noted earlier, virtually every animal with fangs uses venom. I'm not sure what use fangs are WITHOUT venom. So I'd think, biologically, the only purpose for a Pred's fangs would be venom. Whether that venom was lethal to humans is utterly beside the point, since that's not what it would have evolved for--it'd be lethal to the Pred's preferred ancestral prey, though.

BTW, as an aside, snake fangs don't often break--they are just constantly shed and always have replacements at the ready. It is not at all unusual to find shed fangs, perfectly intact, in the snake's poop after having passed undigested through its gut. All the other teeth are also continuously shed as well, but the replacements grow from underneath so you don't see them. Snakes don't have permanent teeth like mammals--all their teeth continuously fall out and are replaced. I've never noticed a broken fang on any snake (unless it bites the snake hook or something)--the teeth get replaced because they go dull after a while, not because they break.

 

[Lflank]

As an utter aside, the sci fi creature I find the most interesting from the purely biological point of view is the xenomorph. When I first saw the exoskeleton (which shed as it grew), the acidic blood, the odd mouth-within-a-mouth, the use of an intermediary host, and the bodily secretions used to make shelters, I knew that whoever dreamed up that creature had a quite good knowledge of insect biology.

 

[damagecase]

Lflank, one point and I'm heading to bed. We really don't know if the predators have fangs though, also. THey have mandibles, similar to an insect but we have know way of knowing if they are venomous. Some (quite a few actually) describe the teeth as tusks rather than fangs which is a term coined from one of the terrible AVP novels. (Actually Prey wasn't that bad of a story, just don't ask Estelle about it...lol)

I'll expand more tomorrow.

 

[damagecase]

"[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]You neglect that whether a venom is "potent" or not is dependent entirely on what is being bitten--but it's always "potent" to the prey."[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]I believe I did take that into account as an unknown variable. Per my original statement "[/background][background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]Of course all this is relative and since we have no idea of what kinds of organism developed parallel to the predators or coexist in the predators natural environment so we really don't know if a predator is a large creature or not, relative to its environment." [/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]Further, your statement [/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]"[/background][background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]There is of course a better explanation for why a predatory animal with very weak teeth and jaws doesn't use venom to kill its prey---the same reason humans have. They use technology (ranging from rocks to plasma cannons) to do it instead. That would make Predator evolution very similar to ours. But as I noted earlier, virtually every animal with fangs uses venom. I'm not sure what use fangs are WITHOUT venom. So I'd think, biologically, the only purpose for a Pred's fangs would be venom. Whether that venom was lethal to humans is utterly beside the point, since that's not what it would have evolved for--it'd be lethal to the Pred's preferred ancestral prey, though." [/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]seems to miss a very important point and parallel between humans and predators: we both have gripping hands and opposable thumbs. Which does lead to technology. So I'll award partial credit. Lol.[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]Now last point: The one thing we know for certain is the main reason the preds have mandibles is because Jim Cameron told Stan Winston he always wanted to see a movie monster with mandibles. Lol.[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]I will say this LFlank, not many folks can give me a run for my money on reptiles but you sir are doing just that. Bravo. There are so many things I want to examine more closely now regarding the feeding mouth parts aspect of the preds. I know it sounds weird but I'm kind looking for a pathological explanation for every biological trait of the preds. And in all honesty you made head way with me on your venom/fang argument and I look forward to hashing out more details. For that I say thank you. [/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]More tomorrow...[/background]

 

[Lflank]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]The one thing we know for certain is the main reason the preds have mandibles is because Jim Cameron told Stan Winston he always wanted to see a movie monster with mandibles. Lol.[/background]
[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]

[/background]

Well of course the reason why the Pred has grasping hands is that it is a human in a suit. Indeed, the real reason why everything about the pred is the way it is, is so it works in the movie. And that's why the Pred's abilities and biology change from movie to movie---the director simply does whatever works best to make an interesting movie. BTW, termites have technology too (they make very sophisticated air-conditioned shelters) and have no hands at all. Crows have been observed using rocks to break open eggshells. I once saw footage of a crow that was faced with the problem of getting to some food floating in a cup that was too deep for him to reach inside. He solved the problem by dropping rocks into the cup and raising the water level until he could reach the floating food--a mental strategy that some humans I know would not have thought of. Primates are not the only intelligent tool-users.

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]I will say this LFlank, not many folks can give me a run for my money on reptiles but you sir are doing just that. Bravo. [/background]

I have an unfair advantage, I think---I have kept well over 100 different species of reptile over the decades, including venomous, I used to make my living doing educational reptile shows for school classes, and have written several books on the topic of keeping reptiles as pets.

 

[Lflank]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]we both have gripping hands and opposable thumbs. [/background]

What this would indicate most strongly, of course, is that both we and Preds had ancestors who were arboreal. Gripping hands and opposable thumbs are not a hallmark of technology----opossums have gripping thumbs too, as also do racoons and koalas, and they have no technology. All of them climb trees, however, and gripping hands and thumbs are indeed signals of arboreal climbers who spend most of their time in trees. The preds also have binocular vision, with two forward-facing eyes. That is something that predatory animals usually have, so they can judge distances and attack prey efficiently. But it is also a characteristic of non-predatory animals that climb trees, where they need good depth perception to move from branch to branch. So, biologically speaking, the Pred ancestor would, in my view, have been an arboreal creature that hunted prey in the trees by paralyzing it with a venomous bite, before later leaving the trees, becoming bipedal on the ground, and using technology to substitute for its fangs---enabling it to target larger terrestrial prey, which over time would lead to a technological society based on hunting.

EDIT: If I may extrapolate further, I would even hypothesize that the type of venom the pred ancestor would have used would have been the equivalent of a cholinesterase inhibitor---something that would have the medical effect of causing paralysis by forcing the muscles to tighten and not relax. That would make the poisoned prey cling tightly to the tree branch where the Pred can reach it, rather than relaxing its muscles, losing its grip, and falling to the ground where it can't be reached.

 

[Lflank]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]For that I say thank you. [/background]

And thanks to you too for this thread. One of the things I liked most about the original predator (and especially the Xenomorph) was that they were more biolopgical than most of the movie "monsters" of that time. Many of the movie monsters were simply impossible, biologically (giant ants, for instance, simply cannot exist in the real world because of the physical restraints of their breathing system). Both the Predator and the Xenomorph had actual biologies, with vision, breathing and anatomical features that were based on actual alien biology rather than just cool-looking horns glued to their heads (like most space aliens were in the early 80's). The Xeno indeed had an entire life cycle, one which made sense in the light of its biology. Back then, that was something very new in the movies, and as someone who was always interested in biology, it caught my eye.

 

[damagecase]

Yeah the ingenuity that exists in the animal kingdom is quite remarkable. And I guess I didn't mean to imply that only primates could use tools or technology, rather it seems to be more of the driving force to mastering these things.

Raccoons actually lack a thumb and I think opussoms only have a partially functioning thumb. And I just looked up koala's and I have no idea what the hell they have...lol. Wild. But I understand were your coming from here. It does almost seem that if your a mammal, being arboreal is prerequisite to the use of tools.

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]"I have an unfair advantage, I think---I have kept well over 100 different species of reptile over the decades, including venomous, I used to make my living doing educational reptile shows for school classes, and have written several books on the topic of keeping reptiles as pets."[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]That is so cool. Depending on what herps you wrote about I may have read you...lol. I more or less have gotten out of herps but I still love 'm. I was able to successfully breed and hatch leopard and African fat tailed geckos. But I've kept several different varieties, although I never really got to work with any non indigenous snakes. Which means, here in Minnesota, I have like two species to work with lol. (There are more, but the bull snake and common garter snake were what I was able to find) Frogs and turtles kinda round out my knowledge base.[/background]

[background=rgb(24, 24, 24)]As to the entire venom on a pred idea[/background][background=rgb(24, 24, 24)], well its kinda grown on me. My question now is this: would the modern representation of the predator retain a highly toxic venom, being that because of social/cultural and technological reasons the need for such venom would be diminished? Also, is it fair to speculate that this ancient tree dwelling predator had a much larger, stronger mandible structure considering that its dependence on them for survival would be increased?[/background]