The obvious qualifier here is "in Star Trek".
Alien "species" or alien "race"?
- Thread starter picardo
- Start date
Another beef I had: The Voth. Dinosaurs were well established to be warm blooded long before VOY aired, yet they had to make them cold blooded. Why? That one point nearly ruined the entire series for me.
Well, they had 65 million years of evolution on an alien world to change them. Maybe their ancestors were warm-blooded but the environment they were transplanted to gave them an incentive to evolve into ectotherms once again. After all, there's no "upward" direction in evolution, just adaptation to new environments. Perhaps their new environment had such a uniform, warm temperature that it was a waste of metabolic energy to generate internal heat, so they lost the ability.
I will have to rewatch the episode, but I thought they made a reference to the cold-bloodedness as a trait shared with dinosaurs (specifically Parasaurolophus).
^Maybe they did. In which case it's a mistake and there's no reason not to ignore it. These aren't documentaries.
As someone studying biology, these things are hard to ignore. 
But I do my best.
But I do my best.
Really? I can understand how someone can become interested in science from watching Trek (as many real scientists have), but learning it? It's not a lecture series. It's not even 'hard' science fiction.
And your premise is flawed anyway. The question has already been answered. It all boils down to creative license in a fictional work, not a deliberate attempt at sophistry. I honestly don't see where all this confusion some are suggesting the terms cause is actually being manifested. This strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.
Well, considering that many (if not most) people think evolution happens like in Pokemon, I wouldn't put it past them...
I Just think they're misinforming the people who watch the show, but then again, I understand that the writers aren't much informed themselves, and they just extrapolate concepts from one field of science to another, in an effort to make plain, simple and convincing dialogue.
Actually, my question remains unanswered: how do you call inhabitants of other planets? My personal opinion is that they're not to be called species or races, there must be some other, more accurate term, but I ignore it since I've never pursued any studies of biology and that's the reason I posted the thread in the hopes someone could elucidate.
It's all fiction I know, and this should not be taken too seriously, perhaps, but this forum was created to ask these questions and debate them, since we are so passionate of the series and identify or sympathise with our favourite characters.
With your subspace radio, of course.
Why shouldn't they be called "race" or "species"? If we are the human race or the human species why can't we call them the Vulcan race or the Klingon species?
If we do find life forms on other planets we will most likely use the taxonomical systems we use for terrestrial lifeforms with a planetary designation above "Domain".
Last edited:
Star Trek seems to use "lifeforms," this isn't a general term that includes animals, plants, etc., but is specific to intelligent beings.
I don't take that very seriously, in the original star trek, even the kllingons were human looking, and even though that was pathetically explained as something shameful, in reality it's just due to budget limitations.
However don't forget that one episode where an ancient civilization seeded life all over the galaxy.. so should it be so far fetched that a great number of civilizations would be so similar to humans, if they all had a common ancestory?
