Taxon talk:Groxidae

Should we have the natural grox here too? This is the grox's taxon. 216.137.232.227 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Possibly as a sub-spieces


 * A different species, but not a sub-species would be nice for the natural grox. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What of an Idea: mixing Paragroxidae with Groxidae --Fedelede 04:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would work regarding the unique features of Groxidae, like their special physiology which makes them toxic and intolerant of certain conditions. Groxidae and Paragroxidae are entirely different, Paragroxidae just includes creatures with certain features that the Grox have, like their cyborg parts or their eyes, their intelligence, their weak bodies or just creatures that have a similar appearance. The unique physiology is a feature of Groxidae and does not include any other life form but the actual Grox. It is clear that NONE of the other creatures have this feature, thus heavily defining them, they are alone here. No other animal has this, they are the only ones that fit into Groxidae. Furby98 23:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What keeps reverting my edits? If I make a change I would like it if it would stay. Stop the reverting of this article! Furby98 11:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Read your talk page. We don't want species-specific taxons. 12:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop this edit war! Ose is right, species-specific taxons are just useless. OluapPlayer 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys seem to think you can justify putting the taxons together just because the creatures look similar. The Paragroxidae page says that the Grox and the creatures there share a recent common ancestor(Why "recent"? The Grox have been around for BILLIONS of years!). That can't be true! Look at the Meta Falcon for example. According to the content, the Meta Falcons were made by humans, they don't share an ancestor with the Grox. And also, it's a pretty radical change, regarding the fact that are little round blobs with huge beaks, feathered wings and big black eyes. The Meta Falcons don't belong there! The only reason those creatures are in Paragroxidae is because they supposedly have some features that the Grox have, like intelligence or physical weakness, or cyborg parts. They aren't related! This won't work. The cyborg parts aren't a biological feature, a creature shouldn't suddenly become related to the Grox because it has robotic parts. Also, many creatures are put there because they are weak and supposedly very intelligent. Any creature could be made very weak, the creator just doesn't have to give it many stats, and anyone could claim their species to be intelligent, only the Grox can actually be proven more intelligent because their scientists actually figured out how to make something better than other empire's technology, which is always limited to a certain level. And also that Grod, it's supposed to be the Grox creature early in it's evolution, but it has very different legs and eyes, and it has clawed front feet and SUCTION CUPS for back feet. It's ludicrous! Also, it was created billions of years(In Spore time) after the Grox conquered all space near the galactic core. It's incredibly stupid too! And the flying Grox? It's the Grox, with big feathered wings, weird, unnatural brown furry patterns and stalk eyes. Also, the ends of it's limbs are augmented. That doesn't make sense! That's such a weird change! Also, the Grox are probably made from a different element than carbon, and with the "carbon wad" thing excluding them, it cannot be a reference to just their cyborg parts, because they are actually more biological than robotic, and they wouldn't simply ignore most of their bodies. And the Grox, being a very logical, arrogant and proud race, will not say something so stupid without realizing that what they are saying is stupid.("You will not receive a holiday card this year!") Being so advanced, they probably know what they are made of by now, and they do not identify it as carbon. They are not carbon based life forms, and EVERY other creature is. The other creatures are actually all made of carbon. If a creature's relative starts out made out of a certain element, it stays made out of the same atoms, right? Thus, if the Grox are made out of one element, and the other creatures are all made out of something different, they can't be related! Those creatures are in Groxidae because they happen to have certain small features(or are simply claimed to have them), and people just automatically dump their creatures there, they don't care about if taxonomy. The taxonomies with these creatures don't even match right. What you guys talking about here is throwing the trash in with the good stuff and polluting it! You can't do this! THIS CANNOT WORK! YOU GUYS ARE WACKED IF YOU THINK THIS WILL WORK! THERE ARE ENOUGH INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PARAGROXIDAE TAXON AS IT IS! NONE OF THE CREATURES THERE FIT PROPERLY! THIS IS WRONG! IF YOU PROTEST I CAN STILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER PILE OF FACTS THAT POINT TO THE UTTER INCONSISTENCIES OF THIS THING! I PROTEST!!! Tell me what you think of this now! It simply can't be done! It's outrageous! Furby98 14:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gee, calm down! We just don't want another abandoned page. Taxons were made to all creatures, not just for one of them. I suggest we put an end in this by voting and discussing in the forum. OluapPlayer 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, let me weigh in on this as creator of the Paragroxidae taxon. First of all, THIS IS SPORE. THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE. If you look at the other taxa, you'll see 'mammals' with bird wings or five-legged, 'reptiles' with warthog heads. You have to remember that practically anything can be made in Spore. Second of all, the 'recent' part of 'recent common ancestor' is entirely relative. For example, the most recent common ancestor of humans and the other great apes lived sometime between 5 and 8 million years ago, whereas the most recent common ancestor of humans and birds lived more than 320 million years ago and was also the most recent common ancestor of mammals and reptiles. Third, I created the Paragroxidae taxon because I knew people were going to make Grox-like creatures, but I expected them to put them somewhere other than Groxidae and thus clutter up the other taxa. Fourth, what official source says that the Grox have been around for billions of years? Everybody can have their own stories about where things come from and when they appeared.
 * I apologize if I sound confrontational; I just want to state my case. Tigress Dragonblade 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proof that the Grox have been around for billions of years(This information comes from this Wiki!): In creature stage, you can find a Grox spaceship flying around. Getting from creature stage doesn't take a long time, only a billion or just a few million years, but sometimes if you have just left cell stage and as soon as you leave the ocean, you can wander inland and sometimes find a crashed Grox spaceship. This indicates that the Grox were spacefaring while you were still in cell stage, which takes billions of years to complete. This means that the Grox are many billions of years ancient, among some the very first sentient life forms! We can just discuss the features that can define them, and besides, I'm not saying that the Grox are related to anything, I'm AGAINST relating them to other creatures! Also, you agree with me there, that Paragroxidae is basically just a trash can, it's where people throw their junk that people made, the creatures in Paragroxidae just have features like the Grox or are made to look similar to the Grox because people thought it was cool. We can discuss this in the forums, or keep it here. Choose your battlefield. Furby98 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my... We aren't "fighting" anything, we just don't want species-specific taxons. So, the Grox is here, and no other creature can be classified here. What happens? The page is forgotten and becomes useless. That's what I don't want to happen. OluapPlayer 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just asking, again. Should some one put the "Natural" Grox in this taxon? Unlike the paragroxidea ( which should have stricter guidlines) the natural grox would belong in this taxon, as they are the ancestors of the mechanical, modern grox. 72.35.127.21 01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the natural Grox and the cyborg Grox are the same creature, they just have these cyborg parts artificially implanted, the Grox are called Mechanicaos Cruelis because it is a reference to their reputation of being evil and their cyborg parts, not their biological classification. The Grox's scientific name is official, it's based off their reputation and what they're well known for. The natural Grox are also Mechanicaos Cruelis unless OluapPlayer wants to change it, which I doubt he will, and changing doesn't seem to be needed. And you're right, Paragroxidae should have stricter guidelines for classification, it shouldn't be just a trash can for random stuff that seems to be similar to the Grox because it's weak and claimed to be intelligent, or things made to resemble the Grox. And also, OluapPlayer, it wouldn't be all to useful if this taxon was forgotten, but are you really willing to compromise your logic and do something preposterous? Besides, who could forget the Grox anyway? And I'm sure Galactic Adventures will really allow players to get up close and personal with the Grox, and they will all be eager to make Grox missions, everyone wants to try that out, and they will all be given new options to express their ideas, and that will give them even more inspiration, and that will definitely spark a new interest. Furby98 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The name is not official just because it is acurate. Also, they are not naturally mechanical, so that sould probably be changed. 216.137.225.167 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said! The implants aren't part of their natural anatomy. And also, creatures that use Grox parts can be made, but they cannot turn up in player's games, so technically creatures with the unique Grox parts don't actually exist!(In the actual games, like space stage, creature stage, etc.) And even if they are played using a hack they will not turn up in other player's games and thus they do not exist in the universe. So the parts still count as completely unique biology(the eye) and mechanical technology(the robotic parts). Furby98 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

However, the name is not official. 216.137.225.167 00:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not official, whatever, but part of the scientific name for Grizzly bears is "horribilis", a reference to the Grizzly bear's reputation for being very aggressive, so I'm just saying that it works, but it could still be changed. Furby98 13:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is not acurate (except for the mechanio-whatever part). I'm saying that you (possibly by accident) claimed it to be official, but it isn't. 216.137.225.167 16:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The scientific name, Mechanicaos Cruelis, could be changed, if that's what you're suggesting we should do, but first ask the guy who made up the current name. Furby98 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What I think we should do now
1: Redefine Groxidae: the classification should be based on the biological traits of the Grox, but not exclusively for it.
 * Regarding the whole carbon/silicone thing, I think we should just disregard it. If the Grox are a silicone-based lifeform, then how do we know that all the others are carbon-based? For the sake of our own sanity, we should try to base the classification on visible traits.

2: Reclassify every Paragroxidae member to this taxon or other more suting ones. Having mechanical parts should not be any reason to put them there, consider the biological traits please.

Does anyone disagree with me? 19:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * About the carbon\silicon thing, the Grox call you a "carbon wad", and they say "Congratulations! You are a credit to all slow-thinking carbon-based life-forms!", so we know that Spore creatures are carbon-based. And yes, the mechanical parts should not be a classification term. But also, consider the fact that the Grox are the only life form that can survive unsurvivable conditions, and their strange toxicity and their unique eye. Their inability to survive survivable conditions may point to a weakness for oxygen. Oxygen burns up in high heat, freezes in extreme cold, is almost absent in low atmospheres, and can be choked out when there is too much other gas in the mixture within a thick atmosphere. It only exists in fairly large amounts when these elements are balanced, or T1 or up. This could mean that the Grox cannot withstand oxygen. There are some mineral elements that react severely to oxygen, for example iron, which slowly becomes a brittle iron oxide and then eventually breaks up. The Grox could be made from, or have their carbon molecules bonded with, a highly oxygen-reactive substance. Also, oxides can be very toxic, which can explain the toxic reaction in the air-lock of the cargo hold. A unique molecular structure calls for a unique species, and a unique place in a unique taxon. Also, this means that they cannot possibly share a recent common ancestor with the creatures in Paragroxidae. They can't be related at all. And the eye, the oh-so-unique eye, which, with strangely large pupils, seems to be well adapted to a certain planet, far away from it's sun, a planet with no oxygen and dim light? You can't just ignore these things. Furby98 20:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have some good points, but i'm still not convinced. My main issue with the different elements is that if one creature can be non-carbon-based, then all kinds of different creatures could be made of different elements. That's why I think we should look away from any such speculation (unless Maxis gives us some more info on the subject). However, i'm still open for discussion, but i've stated my opinion now. 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Play the game! No matter what species you are, you'll still be a carbon-based carbon wad. Every Spore creature must be carbon based, because they drink water and get called carbon-based life-forms by the Grox, and they have red meat and DNA(As stated by Scientist empires, sometimes when they first meet you they'll say "Curious DNA structure..."), and also you can use the DNA of other creatures in cell and creature stage, and the AddDNA cheat is there. Every creature can receive the same statements from other empires, and every creature has to live in T1 environments, so they must all have carbon-based chemical needs. So if every Spore creature has needs and features like Earth creatures, which are carbon based, then Spore creature must all be carbon-based. The Grox obviously have some sort of violent chemical reaction to oxygen, which I'm sure must exist on Spore planets, because in order to have water there must be oxygen, so Spore atmospheres must have breathable oxygen. That must mean that they must be made of a highly reactive element, that is not carbon! And the unique eye also points to a unique genetic structure. Different genetic materials mean that different kinds of results will develop, not ones that come from the limits of a carbon-based genetic structure. You've got to get to grips with this. Furby98 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And YOU'VE got to get to grips with the fact that you just may be wrong. Just because they have similar needs does not meen they are carbon based. Besides, if they were not carbon based, they would be in a completly different DOMAIN. None of the creatures in spore are from the same planet. The very idea to use a classification system is all but pointless. The point of the classification system is for grouping creatures with visble traits, not traits at the molecular level. The term "carbon-based wad" is just an insult. Sinse I don't use profanity, I don't have a good example, but you fill in the blank. Just because it is said doesn't make it so. May we please end this rediculus argument and move on in our lives? 72.35.125.71 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I mean THIS classification system we are using. 72.35.116.73 06:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring everything I said. It's not "carbon-based wad", it's "carbon wad"! I doubt that you even actually own the game. And because they have exactly the same traits as carbon-based animals from Earth do,(red meat, drinking water, a need for balanced temperatures and pressures, DNA;)then they must definitely be carbon-based. And visible traits, sure, visible traits like oxygen intolerance, ability to survive extreme temperatures and pressures, unique eye parts, which comes down to molecular mechanics! TRY TO ACTUALLY LISTEN! And so, by ending the argument and moving on, of course you mean we're leaving this taxon for the Grox and letting the correct information back in. Furby98 15:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do own the game. Here is my reasoning for what I said: Odd eyes: who cares? Carbon based wad vs. carbon wad: wow, big difference. Technically, we have never seen grox meat, nor encoutered anything else non carbon based, so we don't know s*** about what they would be like on the inside. By argument, I mean our argument and you claiming that that the grox are oh-so unique. Just make stricter standards for Groxidae is what I think should be done. Good-bye. 216.152.179.136 05:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: YOU SAID CARBON-BASED WAD!!!! I was just answering the question216.152.179.136 05:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you were referring to "carbon-based wad as the actual insult! It's not. And besides, when I was referring to it in a non this-is-actually what-they-say way I said "carbon-based carbon wad" AND YOU'RE STILL NOT LISTENING! You aren't taking any notice of my explanation of their apparent oxygen intolerance and it's relation to a molecular system! And different eyes? They are unique! They do not appear on any creature in the game except the Grox! TRY TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE AND ACTUALLY READ ALL OF WHAT I SAY SO THERE AREN'T ANY COMPLICATIONS! Furby98 15:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of you calm down and stop. Please. This is getting ridiculous. A good portion of the argument is now along the lines of "You're so stupid why don't you pay attention I'm right shut up and live with it!" 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)