#im on team saint isnt a slugcat this a sinister new creature

[gay-artificer]

Perhaps my most controversial take is that Saint might not be a slugcat.

If we consider Survivor (and to a lesser extent Monk and even Hunter) as the quintessential example of a slugcat, we have the basis for what actually counts as one. From there we have to look at the deviants from basic form and determine how severe they deviate- which I think all others but Saint don't go to far. Spearmaster- Modified organism using a slugcat base. Stretching the definition of a normal slugcat here maybe, but more or less still resembles the rest of the group minus the obvious. Definitely not considered a member of the same species though. Artificer- Minus the weird explosion bacteria, it is a normal slugcat in terms of form Gourmand- Literally just fat and strong. Perfectly normal fella. Rivulet- Okay this is where we get interesting. Rivulet is both the first to deviate notably from the basic slugcat in terms of readable physical traits, and is also set further in the timeline. An evolutionary split from what a 'slugcat' is fully possible. However, their actual traits are rather minute. Rivulets main trait is the presence of external gills, suggesting an aquatic adaption. However in real world examples of external gills they are mostly a development of species that already had gills in some form in either their lifecycle or biology. The most obvious inspiration for rivulet's design is likely the axolotl, which is a salamander that has neotenic (juvenile) traits due to never metamorphosing. If you force metamorphosis, an axolotl looks like a normal salamander

Gills or gill-like structures can also be internal or land-modified- Spiders for example have book lungs, which are likely evolved from book gills (whereas in human evolution our gills did not evolve into lungs, and gills instead 'turned into' parts of our skull and ears) you can also have lungs and gills, as seen with certain species of lungfish. It seems perfectly reasonable to guess that the slugcat- either currently or historically- made use of a gill or gill-like system- which would set rivulet up for either a reemergence of the trait or as an alternative evolutionary path. I could easily see the rivulet 'type' of slugcat existing alongside the normal species, just isolated to coastal and other floodzones- or as one of several independent cases of the external gill trait emerging. Complicating things further- Sea slugs make use of gills in several forms, while (most) land slugs have lost their gills and created a simple lung out a hollow cavity. There is also at least one slug that completely lacks both lungs and gills and breathes entirely through their skin. Lots of variety there within a group. What we can confirm though is that at minimum- slugcats do have a nose. However the presence of the nostrils alone doesn't tell us the fine details; Frogs also have nostrils and make heavy use of them for the vast majority of their breathing, but also have permeable skin that also allows for oxygen exchange (particularly while under water). So its complicated. All this is a very complicated way of say that there's no real indication that rivulet is all that particularly unique compared to the basic slugcat, minus the gills- which are something that could be a perfectly normal trait to develop without getting too far from the traits that make a slugcat a slugcat. It would be, at minimum, its own species though. Genus you could argue about. And then we get to Saint. Saint is ages forward in the timeline for our 'basic' slugcat, to the point where even lizards have heavily shifted their evolutionary patterns and there have been notable extinctions within the window the game provides. Saint itself has a very notable deviation: Very obvious long fur (or at least, something convincingly playing the role of fur). While furry slugcats (whether that be more cat-like or fine fur like a seal) is popular in fanon works, official art has an obvious smoothness to it more indicative of bare skin (Although the quality of this skin, such as if its more mammalian or amphibian, etc- is unknown)

While the type of skin could heavily change how big of a deal this is (it would be a lot easier to develop and lose fur with the structure of mammalian skin than amphibian skin; and if we are being technical mammals are the only thing that can truly develop fur/hair) It does at least mark the development of a trait that seemingly took several generations to acquire, at least on par with the development of a fur or fur-like trait in all surviving species of 'lizards' It does seem to intend to mirror, to a degree, the evolution of mammals. Which begs the question... can you really call Saint a slugcat? When you think about what survivor is, and how removed Saint is from them in both physical features and time period... would the term be appropriate? And to be specific, its technically incorrect to say things evolve "into" other things- they split and grow into distinct things (and sometimes all but one dies off in the process). Evolutionary history is difficult to chart for a number or reasons, and its extremely complicated- but when we say something like "snakes evolved from lizards" what it really means is that at some point there was a group of something we agreed were lizards, and then something within that group began to change into something with its own distinct features and traits until we gave it a new name. In the lizard and snakes example, snakes are technically lizards. Just lizards with very specific traits we don't consider lizard traits. But you also have examples like mantodea (Mantises) and Blattodea (Roaches and Termites).

A some point there was something that was neither mantis nor roach (the roachoids, which despite being more roach-like than mantis-like we don't consider them proper roaches), that split into things that would go on to form the basis of those groups (and then termites would split from there, making termites technically a type of roach). And for the rest of history humans would argue constantly about what to do with this mess So really the question is what do we consider a slugcat, and is Saint part of an evolutionary lineage that 'slugcat' applies fully across, or does Saint mark a split into something else, that would technically go alongside "true" slugcats under a wider net. Slugcat definitely isn't a singular species and I lean towards genus but could see an argument for family or order. Lets do DNA analysis on pixels and find out they are actually a type of lantern mouse