5

Avatea is a deity of Cook Islands Mythology. They display a mixture of human and piscine traits:

They have two heads, the left one like a fish and the right one like a man. Their body is half fish and half human, with a left side like a fish and the right side like a human. They have a pectoral and pelvic fin on the left of their chest, alongside a dorsal fin on their back. On the right is a human arm. They have half a pelvis, to which their single human leg can attach; on the other side is a complete fish tail, by which they can swim about

How could such a being fit together internally?

Tortliena - inactive
  • 7,527
  • 1
  • 19
  • 65
Ichthys King
  • 16,048
  • 2
  • 26
  • 110
  • 2
    VTC for not following the rules: "the ACS is now limited to questions about documented myths and legends of Humanity and creatures thoroughly designed (other than lacking anatomical fulfillment) for a fictional world of the OP's own creation." (You can thank ITM_Coder for my change of heart. It's time to start hard-lining the ACS rules.) There isn't enough behavioral information about this creature to answer the question. – JBH Jul 30 '22 at 06:13
  • @JBH Why do we need to explain a creature's behaviour to ask about its anatomy? Would you ask how an animal acts before trying to deduce its phylum? – Ichthys King Jul 30 '22 at 10:05
  • @IchtysKing Because behaviours (ie range of actions done) and anatomy are linked. Asking about anatomy without giving some traits they can do is like asking what ingredients you need for a cake without ever telling if it's a salty or sugary one. Without regarding details, it's probably not enough focused on a specific issue you're having. – Tortliena - inactive Jul 30 '22 at 13:10
  • 3
    I note the closed question says "This question does not appear to be about worldbuilding, within the scope defined in the help center." "Help center" there links directly to a page that gives "anatomically correct phoenix" as a specific example of something you CAN ask about on Worldbuilding. – Mike Serfas Jul 30 '22 at 14:14
  • @Tortliena You don't need to know whether a cake is salty or sugary to know that you shouldn't add pitchblende to it. Similarly, there are some things you can say about anatomy that will apply to pretty much all reasonable behaviours that a creature could have – Ichthys King Jul 30 '22 at 15:04
  • @MikeSerfas I agree with you, the closure reason should have been lacking details or focus. We shouldn't presume we can relianly know a myth is "not" well documented enough to be on-topic when I already saw people confusing tarasques with its D&D variant. – Tortliena - inactive Jul 31 '22 at 11:58
  • @IchtysKing But I do need to know this in order to add either chocolate or sausages and pepperonis in it. What you have to do is in general more important (and specific) than what you shouldn't. Remember, in order to prevent broad strikes without real quality behind, you have to be specific and clear on the issue you're having, and both are required qualities on WB:SE. You should already know you can always ask multiple questions to solve smaller, more accurate and more digestible bits of the anatomy of avateas. – Tortliena - inactive Jul 31 '22 at 12:56
  • @Tortliena Why must I add in so much detail for this question to be answered? Do parapagus twins not have neck bones if Avatea eats meat? Do fishes' vertebrae move around based on Avatea's speed? – Ichthys King Jul 31 '22 at 13:22
  • @IchtysKing Because you're asking about all the creature's internals. Beyond making it fall more outside WB:SE's scope of specific questions, answering it just requires a whole lot more data to know if this creature would work in a world. Recall, biological structures have evolutionary purpose determined by moving from ecological niche to niche, and therefore... Behaviors. Closure would have been much less likely to happen if you focused on the biggest anatomy issue you're having with this creature, making this a reusable element, regardless of the "whole". – Tortliena - inactive Jul 31 '22 at 13:34
  • @Tortliena Not every world uses evolution as its mode of zoogony. Even so, your logic suggests not only must we provide current behaviour, but a record of every single set of behaviours in its history (or else how would we work out what parts the previous species had?). Also, in what way is a question about anatomy somehow not specific enough if we don't delve into the minute details? Is specificity based on some sort of physical size resolution? – Ichthys King Jul 31 '22 at 13:48
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Tortliena - inactive Jul 31 '22 at 13:48
  • Let's see... Do I need to know what an animal eats to theorize about its teeth? Do I need to know about how it hunts to theorize about its eyesight and hearing? Do I need to know if it's a runner, a jumper, or uses stealth when hunting to theorize about its muscles, bones, and sinews? Yes, Ichtys, it's your job to create the creature's complete profile - and that profile is actually required to discern its complete anatomy. Frankly, most of the questions you ask are trivially answered by yourself. Either meet our expectations or stop asking. – JBH Aug 01 '22 at 02:38

2 Answers2

3

Heads

This isn't much of an issue for this being: There are many examples of people, animals, and fish born with 2 heads on 1 body. This sort of anatomy could easily be copied onto Avatea

Torso

It is not entirely possible to combine fish and human torsos side by side perfectly. This is due to the proportions of the meat between tetrapods and most fish: Fish tend to have large amounts of muscle behind the back, with the spine in the middle of the body. On the other hand, tetrapods like humans have the spine in the back of the torso, with little flesh behind it. The only solution here would be to have a fish-type back on both sides. Other than that, there shouldn't be many issues within the torso

Legs

The lower anatomy, with the legs and tail, could be managed in a quite regular way: Having a single hip detached from the spine, to which the leg attaches, could simply capture the anatomy of Avatea. This hip would need the same muscular and osseous bulk to match the right side, and the tail will also have to be offset to sit on the left side

Ichthys King
  • 16,048
  • 2
  • 26
  • 110
1

How could such a being fit together internally?

By magic, it's not possible otherwise.

Many Polynesian deities are purposely meant to be impossible because it creates a big contrast between spirit and reality. Especially the older and important ones which may have undergone several evolutions in their descriptions over time and place.

Trying to describe them in realistic terms defeats the purpose and is an assault on their sacredness.

When depicted in carvings there is no attempt to make them into something that might actually work. Because there is no need for it. It's just an outward form.

Kilisi
  • 26,524
  • 1
  • 36
  • 104