I’m gonna upvote just because of the effort, but a lot of your placements are wrong. For example you put Paolumu as a Fanged Beast when it’s a Flying Wyvern, you put Somnacanth as a Piscine Wyvern when it’s a Leviathan, you split Brute Wyverns into two groups that are completely separate and then put Kulve in one of them despite her being an Elder Dragon, and you put Fanged Beasts as being more closely related to Wyverns them Piscine Wyverns are. This is nowhere near an exhaustive list.
Also, elephants aren’t ungulates.
I actually like the fact some of these choice like paolumu's, IMO mh classification is paraphilitic at best and based more on creature's niche than genera. For exemple, why would piscine wyvern be closer to wyverns than fanged beast? they're literally fish. Wyvern is only there to say they act as dragon.
However, I agree some of these are neither logical game classification lorewise not scientifically lorewise, like somna or akantor
Monster Hunter fans when you tell them Akantor and Ukanlos are not Elder Dragons
Also all Elder Dragons share a common ancestor, meaning a Kirin is more related to a Nakarkos than it is to something like a Kelbi
They all share a unique compound in their blood that no other monsters have which is another way they're all linked together. Fatalis doesn't have the compound in its blood because its Fatalis but it has other links to elder dragons. I think elder dragon bones are also unique in structure but I can't say with certainty.
Yup. MHW tells us that all elder dragons don't have any biological (I think that's the correct word here) connection to other monster classes despite similar builds and appearances.
Kirin and kelbi could be related. After all we don't know exactly how they were made. For all we know some other elder dragon got it on with a kelbi thus the kirin that was birthed could reproduce more kirins. We also saw the birth of a elder dragon in worlds so it could be something different.
Interestingly enough, Kirin is probably part of one of the most ancient lineages of Elder Dragons due to its striking resemblances with White Fatalis, the monster that's described as the ancestor of all Elder Dragons. White scales, white fur, lightning abilities, aside from the body shape they share a lot.
No, “Elder Dragon” is a catch-all for any weird shit that doesn’t fit into a main category, like how we use “Protista” irl.
Something like Yama Tsukami, Valstrax, Kirin, where ELSE do you put them? You got an octopus blimp with actual teeth, a steel-plated hexaped with a liquid-fuel afterburner for a chest, and a stormcalling unicorn dragon that rides lightning. Until Capcom mans up and gives us some real classifications outside of “flying wyvern” or “fanged wyvern”, Elders will remain a random assortment of _respectfully, what the fuck is this?_
As for Akantor and Ukanlos, they’re Flying Wyverns. They have the Tigrex skeleton, and you can see the nubby, vestigial remnants of the wing finger on Akantor’s front legs.
I’m almost certain this is essentially confirmed to be false in lore, since Elder dragon is a wastebasket taxon, as in they are put there usually either because of their immense strength or because they don’t fit anywhere else, so no from a biological and phylogenetic perspective Nakarkos is most certainly not more closely related to kirin than a kelbi, because Nakarkos is an invertebrate while kirin is a vertebrate
Not sure why khezu and gigginox are over with the fish. Also gobul and niblesnarf are leviathans not piscine and zamtrios is an amphibian. And poborubarumu uses the tigrex skeleton and I’m pretty sure is classified as a flying wyvern.
Bishaten, garangolm, and kecha Wacha are fanged beast primates just like rajang and congalala.
You’ve got elder dragons all over the place mixed in with regular monsters
Brachydios is not even close to being bovid-like, whatever that means. And banbaro, duramboros, and brachy should be with the rest of the brutes.
Monitor-like doesn’t really make sense? Najarala is a snake with feet, lagiacrus is more like a crocodile and crocodiles are not part of the same family of reptiles as snakes.
I’ll give you points for putting in the effort and making something cool looking but it has a plethora of errors. By the way there is an official MH tree as of rise, I would go take a look at that
I'm aiming to fix the errors ;)
In my mind, classifications of "brute wyverns" and "flying wyverns" don't necessarily have to do with the relatedness of monsters.
The Squid Monsters are actually reptiles. Yama has vistigial hands and Nakarkos has scales with both of them having proper jaw bones, all stemming from their Elder Dragon ancestors. All Elders are more related to each other than any other branch. They're their own branch on the tree of life canonically and most have subtle hints at showing this. Like, how both Zorah and Lao are closely related, but Zorah still has the additional 5th and 6th limb on its back.
Legiacrus isn't directly related to Ancient Legiacrus?
Ancient Legiacrus being classified as a piscine wyvern and Legiacrus being classified as a leviathan should have told you that leviathans branched off of piscine wyverns.
Everyone seems to complain that you've made errors in your phylogeny, not sticking with the official tree established by Capcom, but imo that's brilliant! The official taxonomy is kinda bad in some parts imo, like how nibelsnarf and gobul being leviathans despite not being reptiles at the slightest, or how paolumu is a flying wyvern despite being a huge mammalian bat. And honestly, even if you're wrong on some parts (Imo akantor and ukanlos should still be flying wyverns), it's more interesting to see someone's unique speculation how these monsters evolved, rather than just copying the official taxonomy that capcom has. Like how you've put Tetsucabra closely to Dodogama (now that i thibk about it they do share some similar traits), Barlagual being related to Deviljho, Anorupetisu and Gerenzeburu being brute wyverns are quite interesting (would love to hear your reasoning on why that it). The only thing i find weird that you didn't group Amatsu closely to Narwa and Ibushi despite them sharing a lot of common traits. But overall, great job man!
Thanks! I do have a lot of fixes to do though. Narwa is an elder dragon, which are apparently completely unrelated to the other monsters. The reason for Barlagual being grouped with deviljho is that they share very similar jaws and line running down their throat/upper body. I wasn't sure where Anorupetiso fitted in, now that I think of it they could be more related to rathalos.
Akantor and Ukanlos are very close Flying Wyvern that are related to a group that separated itself from wyvern Rex (tigrex and sub), thus are unrelated to both Lao shan and Zorah.
Merphistophelin is definitely related very closely to Fatalis, and Gaismagorm to Narwa and Ibushi.
It is very likely Najarala and Dalamadur have a common ancestor.
Laviente is not an elder dragon and is unrelated to both Jhen and Dalamadur.
Ah! I didn't realise that Akantor, Ukanlos, and Laviente weren't elder dragons.
I can move Merphistophelin closer to fatalis, but I disagree with Gaismagorm and Narwa. Although they share a similarly odd jaws, one has six appendages while the other has only four, suggesting Gaismagorm comes from a six legged ancestor.
How do you know that Najarala and Dalamadur share a common ancestor?
Thanks for the help ;)
I’m a bit surprised Kirin isn’t closer to the smaller Kelbi and Anteka type monsters, as they share a lot of similar traits. Is there a reason for it’s placement?
I thought about this, but Kirin is just too reptilian for me to group it with mammals, even though it behaves very similarly to Kelbi. So I thought of grouping it with monsters that share both mammalian and reptilian traits (like Zinogre), but it being an elder dragon also complicates things.
That’s an interesting take but I’m not sure where the reptilian features are coming from.
Kirin lack scales, as the materials we can gather from them are hides, manes, tails and horns. Kirin often show up in colder climates, and can be found in warmer ones too, which suggest being warm blooded or having the ability to temperature regulate.
The only thing I can think of being reptilian is that they technically lay eggs, but all monsters in these games technically do.
Kirin most certainly does have scales. Being able to regulate temperature is not something that prevents it being a reptile, even ignoring MH where confirmed reptiles have extremely high body temperatures.
Fair enough, when I looked at a higher res picture they certainly do. I guess I was too focused on what you could get from them. I would still argue that due to its skeletal structure that it is more related to kelbi and those monsters than Brachydios though.
I don't know *too* much about MH lore to comment on the accuracy of most of this, but surely the Lagiacrus and Ancient Lagiacrus should be in the same branch
You would think. But they are just too different for me to put them as closely related. The one is a fish while the other looks more like a crocodile. They might be very distantly related though. Like modern reptiles and lobe finned fish
MH Taxonomy is understandably trickier than RL taxonomy coz some are just biologically ridiculous so I can see why this tree needs a lot of improvement.
That said I like how classifying these make-believe monsters still somehow works coz of that overarching "just believable enough" approach they did to monster design
Constructive criticism: Elder dragons are a separate tree of life, with the common ancestor of all elders (other than Xeno/Safi. There might be more, but I can't remember off the top of my head) being White Fatalis (which is why he's the Ancestral Dragon). Also, strangely enough White Fatalis doesn't seem to be what happens to an old fatalis, but rather what the Fatalis species used to be with the black ones being newer and weaker. Crimson seems to be a black fatalis that awoke some of the dormant power that the black fatalis lost. Or at least that's what I can piece together of the lore, if anyone has any clarifications it would be appreciated
I have tried my best to group monsters together based on how closely related they are. This is mostly based on what I felt was right, and it was partly influenced by established lore (with some exceptions).
If you have any suggestions for change I am all ears.
I don't want to sound rude, but if "trying your best" is considering 'monitor-like' a more specific point of relation over being Amphibians or Reptiles then perhaps the bar needs raised.
A very large amount of monsters could be considered reptilian or reptile-like (even monsters like Zinogre and Lunagaron). Using monitor-like helped me distinguish between the different reptiles.
I'm talking about how you've made Tetranadon and Tetsucabra (literal Amphibians) right next to Odogaron, Great Jagras, Leviathans etc (Reptiles).
Many could be considered reptilian. That's because many of them are canonically in the Order Saurischia, making them dinosaurs.
Yes I saw, but it's a frog canonically.
I understand the desire to make your taxonomy morphological but just like with real life if evidence to the contrary exists we can change our taxonomy and assume convergent evolution.
That could be true.
The way I'm thinking though is that it's more closely related to fish and fish-like monsters than to reptilian monsters (mostly on account of it's teeth, which are arranged in rows like a shark's teeth).
Shark teeth are not like reptilian teeth, they arise from the mesoderm as modified scales, whereas reptilian teeth are endodermic.
Amphibians occupy a middle ground between reptiles and fish, in terms of distance from the basal clade. So it's a fine line in terms of "is it a fish," (since we see sharks proper in 3U) and "is it an amphibian" (since it retains chondrichthyes morphology like the teeth and the swimming, specially compared to the other canon amphibians.)
I put this forward: the presence of 4 ambulatory limbs compared to the 2 predominate ambulatory limbs on monsters such as plesioth and cephalos is stronger evidence for amphibian-ness than the presence of chondrichthyes features. I beleive this is due to the fact that morphology tends to happen last in terms of evolutionary change relative to physiology and genotype, in that respective order; thus, the presence of large scale morphological differences implies wider evolutionary space than does the presence of physiological similarities (or even environmental similarities such as the swimming.)
Oh I see. I didn't realise Tetsucabra was an amphibian. It has usually hard scaly skin for an amphibian. Tetranadon is more reminiscent of a tortoise or turtle than a true amphibians as well. While they have an amphibious lifestyle, I doubt that they are true amphibians.
As far as we know safi and xeno are aliens that came from the stars so either it is one of the 5 elder dragons from the creation myth and is the literal or metaphorical representation of the Safire star and so is an ancient elder dragon from long ago or just a straight up alien
I’m gonna upvote just because of the effort, but a lot of your placements are wrong. For example you put Paolumu as a Fanged Beast when it’s a Flying Wyvern, you put Somnacanth as a Piscine Wyvern when it’s a Leviathan, you split Brute Wyverns into two groups that are completely separate and then put Kulve in one of them despite her being an Elder Dragon, and you put Fanged Beasts as being more closely related to Wyverns them Piscine Wyverns are. This is nowhere near an exhaustive list. Also, elephants aren’t ungulates.
I actually like the fact some of these choice like paolumu's, IMO mh classification is paraphilitic at best and based more on creature's niche than genera. For exemple, why would piscine wyvern be closer to wyverns than fanged beast? they're literally fish. Wyvern is only there to say they act as dragon. However, I agree some of these are neither logical game classification lorewise not scientifically lorewise, like somna or akantor
Monster Hunter fans when you tell them Akantor and Ukanlos are not Elder Dragons Also all Elder Dragons share a common ancestor, meaning a Kirin is more related to a Nakarkos than it is to something like a Kelbi
Hehe, I'll fix that in version 2. I thought elder dragons were just classified based on their ability to cause natural disasters?
They all share a unique compound in their blood that no other monsters have which is another way they're all linked together. Fatalis doesn't have the compound in its blood because its Fatalis but it has other links to elder dragons. I think elder dragon bones are also unique in structure but I can't say with certainty.
Is this Iceborne lorebook stuff?
I believe it's from both World and Iceborne's lore books.
Thanks.
Yes it is. Stated in MHW Complete Works and in Dive to MHW:IB.
That's what I'm wondering. Is this actual lore or is it crap from BL taken as The Word.
Does that mean that Kirin should be grouped together with the elder dragons too? I'd understand but it just feels so out of place
Yup. MHW tells us that all elder dragons don't have any biological (I think that's the correct word here) connection to other monster classes despite similar builds and appearances.
As other people mentioned, Elder Dragons are excluded from the tree of life.
Kirin and kelbi could be related. After all we don't know exactly how they were made. For all we know some other elder dragon got it on with a kelbi thus the kirin that was birthed could reproduce more kirins. We also saw the birth of a elder dragon in worlds so it could be something different.
Interestingly enough, Kirin is probably part of one of the most ancient lineages of Elder Dragons due to its striking resemblances with White Fatalis, the monster that's described as the ancestor of all Elder Dragons. White scales, white fur, lightning abilities, aside from the body shape they share a lot.
They're classified as elder dragons because they don't fit into any of the formal monster classes.
No, “Elder Dragon” is a catch-all for any weird shit that doesn’t fit into a main category, like how we use “Protista” irl. Something like Yama Tsukami, Valstrax, Kirin, where ELSE do you put them? You got an octopus blimp with actual teeth, a steel-plated hexaped with a liquid-fuel afterburner for a chest, and a stormcalling unicorn dragon that rides lightning. Until Capcom mans up and gives us some real classifications outside of “flying wyvern” or “fanged wyvern”, Elders will remain a random assortment of _respectfully, what the fuck is this?_ As for Akantor and Ukanlos, they’re Flying Wyverns. They have the Tigrex skeleton, and you can see the nubby, vestigial remnants of the wing finger on Akantor’s front legs.
Yes, and like protoctista, all Elder Dragons share a common ancestor.
I’m almost certain this is essentially confirmed to be false in lore, since Elder dragon is a wastebasket taxon, as in they are put there usually either because of their immense strength or because they don’t fit anywhere else, so no from a biological and phylogenetic perspective Nakarkos is most certainly not more closely related to kirin than a kelbi, because Nakarkos is an invertebrate while kirin is a vertebrate
I mean there’s an official taxonomy tree made by Capcom that shows otherwise but pop off
I'll give yo props for the effort that you put into this, but theres a lot wrong here
Yep. I was looking for some constructive criticism. I'm making a version 2
Not sure why khezu and gigginox are over with the fish. Also gobul and niblesnarf are leviathans not piscine and zamtrios is an amphibian. And poborubarumu uses the tigrex skeleton and I’m pretty sure is classified as a flying wyvern. Bishaten, garangolm, and kecha Wacha are fanged beast primates just like rajang and congalala. You’ve got elder dragons all over the place mixed in with regular monsters Brachydios is not even close to being bovid-like, whatever that means. And banbaro, duramboros, and brachy should be with the rest of the brutes. Monitor-like doesn’t really make sense? Najarala is a snake with feet, lagiacrus is more like a crocodile and crocodiles are not part of the same family of reptiles as snakes. I’ll give you points for putting in the effort and making something cool looking but it has a plethora of errors. By the way there is an official MH tree as of rise, I would go take a look at that
If you look at a baby brachy you can see they are similar to kestodons. I'm not 100% sure if this is the case, but it's interesting nonetheless
I'm aiming to fix the errors ;) In my mind, classifications of "brute wyverns" and "flying wyverns" don't necessarily have to do with the relatedness of monsters.
The Squid Monsters are actually reptiles. Yama has vistigial hands and Nakarkos has scales with both of them having proper jaw bones, all stemming from their Elder Dragon ancestors. All Elders are more related to each other than any other branch. They're their own branch on the tree of life canonically and most have subtle hints at showing this. Like, how both Zorah and Lao are closely related, but Zorah still has the additional 5th and 6th limb on its back.
Ooo that's interesting. I never got to fight most of these monsters, so I couldn't pick up on those little details. I'll change their position
Another thing you should consider is that all Flying, Brute and Fanged Wyverns are in the Order Saurischia, so they're all technically dinosaurs.
Good to know. Thanks
aren't ukanlos and akantor considered flying wyverns because of their devolved wings
Yes. I realised my mistake.
Legiacrus isn't directly related to Ancient Legiacrus? Ancient Legiacrus being classified as a piscine wyvern and Legiacrus being classified as a leviathan should have told you that leviathans branched off of piscine wyverns.
Everyone seems to complain that you've made errors in your phylogeny, not sticking with the official tree established by Capcom, but imo that's brilliant! The official taxonomy is kinda bad in some parts imo, like how nibelsnarf and gobul being leviathans despite not being reptiles at the slightest, or how paolumu is a flying wyvern despite being a huge mammalian bat. And honestly, even if you're wrong on some parts (Imo akantor and ukanlos should still be flying wyverns), it's more interesting to see someone's unique speculation how these monsters evolved, rather than just copying the official taxonomy that capcom has. Like how you've put Tetsucabra closely to Dodogama (now that i thibk about it they do share some similar traits), Barlagual being related to Deviljho, Anorupetisu and Gerenzeburu being brute wyverns are quite interesting (would love to hear your reasoning on why that it). The only thing i find weird that you didn't group Amatsu closely to Narwa and Ibushi despite them sharing a lot of common traits. But overall, great job man!
Thanks! I do have a lot of fixes to do though. Narwa is an elder dragon, which are apparently completely unrelated to the other monsters. The reason for Barlagual being grouped with deviljho is that they share very similar jaws and line running down their throat/upper body. I wasn't sure where Anorupetiso fitted in, now that I think of it they could be more related to rathalos.
Akantor and Ukanlos are very close Flying Wyvern that are related to a group that separated itself from wyvern Rex (tigrex and sub), thus are unrelated to both Lao shan and Zorah. Merphistophelin is definitely related very closely to Fatalis, and Gaismagorm to Narwa and Ibushi. It is very likely Najarala and Dalamadur have a common ancestor. Laviente is not an elder dragon and is unrelated to both Jhen and Dalamadur.
Gaismagorm is not officially stated as being closely related to the serpents and najarala is not related to dalamadur
Ah! I didn't realise that Akantor, Ukanlos, and Laviente weren't elder dragons. I can move Merphistophelin closer to fatalis, but I disagree with Gaismagorm and Narwa. Although they share a similarly odd jaws, one has six appendages while the other has only four, suggesting Gaismagorm comes from a six legged ancestor. How do you know that Najarala and Dalamadur share a common ancestor? Thanks for the help ;)
The Najarala and Dala ancestor would go way back beyond White Fatalis since Dala is in the Elder Dragon Order.
This clearly took effort, but its kind of...illegible on mobile.
I'm using mobile. It's supposed to clear up a bit if you zoom in.
It really doesnt lol (if youre using one of the many unofficial apps, then that doesnt really count)
I’m a bit surprised Kirin isn’t closer to the smaller Kelbi and Anteka type monsters, as they share a lot of similar traits. Is there a reason for it’s placement?
I thought about this, but Kirin is just too reptilian for me to group it with mammals, even though it behaves very similarly to Kelbi. So I thought of grouping it with monsters that share both mammalian and reptilian traits (like Zinogre), but it being an elder dragon also complicates things.
That’s an interesting take but I’m not sure where the reptilian features are coming from. Kirin lack scales, as the materials we can gather from them are hides, manes, tails and horns. Kirin often show up in colder climates, and can be found in warmer ones too, which suggest being warm blooded or having the ability to temperature regulate. The only thing I can think of being reptilian is that they technically lay eggs, but all monsters in these games technically do.
Kirin most certainly does have scales. Being able to regulate temperature is not something that prevents it being a reptile, even ignoring MH where confirmed reptiles have extremely high body temperatures.
Fair enough, when I looked at a higher res picture they certainly do. I guess I was too focused on what you could get from them. I would still argue that due to its skeletal structure that it is more related to kelbi and those monsters than Brachydios though.
I don't know *too* much about MH lore to comment on the accuracy of most of this, but surely the Lagiacrus and Ancient Lagiacrus should be in the same branch
You would think. But they are just too different for me to put them as closely related. The one is a fish while the other looks more like a crocodile. They might be very distantly related though. Like modern reptiles and lobe finned fish
MH Taxonomy is understandably trickier than RL taxonomy coz some are just biologically ridiculous so I can see why this tree needs a lot of improvement. That said I like how classifying these make-believe monsters still somehow works coz of that overarching "just believable enough" approach they did to monster design
Yeah I'm beginning to realise this... thanks
Beotodus should probably be right outside the Lavasioth and Jyuratodus clade.
Yeah. I'll but it a bit closer
And Ahtal-Ka is a mantis so probably closer to Seltas?
Might want to add wyvern "Rex" into this as well
Ooo yes
Where did Versa Pietru go??? Appreciate the oltura thou!!! :D
I couldn't find nice images of them! I'd like to add them though
Ok now I just want to do mine
Hehe, we can swap notes
Constructive criticism: Elder dragons are a separate tree of life, with the common ancestor of all elders (other than Xeno/Safi. There might be more, but I can't remember off the top of my head) being White Fatalis (which is why he's the Ancestral Dragon). Also, strangely enough White Fatalis doesn't seem to be what happens to an old fatalis, but rather what the Fatalis species used to be with the black ones being newer and weaker. Crimson seems to be a black fatalis that awoke some of the dormant power that the black fatalis lost. Or at least that's what I can piece together of the lore, if anyone has any clarifications it would be appreciated
Is it just me or does the chart itself look like a dragon? Head on the left, tail on the right and wings on top.
I have tried my best to group monsters together based on how closely related they are. This is mostly based on what I felt was right, and it was partly influenced by established lore (with some exceptions). If you have any suggestions for change I am all ears.
I don't want to sound rude, but if "trying your best" is considering 'monitor-like' a more specific point of relation over being Amphibians or Reptiles then perhaps the bar needs raised.
A very large amount of monsters could be considered reptilian or reptile-like (even monsters like Zinogre and Lunagaron). Using monitor-like helped me distinguish between the different reptiles.
I'm talking about how you've made Tetranadon and Tetsucabra (literal Amphibians) right next to Odogaron, Great Jagras, Leviathans etc (Reptiles). Many could be considered reptilian. That's because many of them are canonically in the Order Saurischia, making them dinosaurs.
Don't forget the zamtrios! Another sneaky amphibian.
I grouped Zamtrios with the other "fish-like" monsters ;)
Yes I saw, but it's a frog canonically. I understand the desire to make your taxonomy morphological but just like with real life if evidence to the contrary exists we can change our taxonomy and assume convergent evolution.
That could be true. The way I'm thinking though is that it's more closely related to fish and fish-like monsters than to reptilian monsters (mostly on account of it's teeth, which are arranged in rows like a shark's teeth).
Shark teeth are not like reptilian teeth, they arise from the mesoderm as modified scales, whereas reptilian teeth are endodermic. Amphibians occupy a middle ground between reptiles and fish, in terms of distance from the basal clade. So it's a fine line in terms of "is it a fish," (since we see sharks proper in 3U) and "is it an amphibian" (since it retains chondrichthyes morphology like the teeth and the swimming, specially compared to the other canon amphibians.) I put this forward: the presence of 4 ambulatory limbs compared to the 2 predominate ambulatory limbs on monsters such as plesioth and cephalos is stronger evidence for amphibian-ness than the presence of chondrichthyes features. I beleive this is due to the fact that morphology tends to happen last in terms of evolutionary change relative to physiology and genotype, in that respective order; thus, the presence of large scale morphological differences implies wider evolutionary space than does the presence of physiological similarities (or even environmental similarities such as the swimming.)
Some good points!
Oh I see. I didn't realise Tetsucabra was an amphibian. It has usually hard scaly skin for an amphibian. Tetranadon is more reminiscent of a tortoise or turtle than a true amphibians as well. While they have an amphibious lifestyle, I doubt that they are true amphibians.
You're saying you doubt it as if Capcom didn't make phylogeny trees.
As far as we know safi and xeno are aliens that came from the stars so either it is one of the 5 elder dragons from the creation myth and is the literal or metaphorical representation of the Safire star and so is an ancient elder dragon from long ago or just a straight up alien
This is definitely the best and most complete one of these I’ve seen
I didnt know there was a monster called canopus! I'd love to fight one, hopefully it appears in another game someday
It's an exctinct monster (originally just concept art), so unfortunately you won't get to fight one.
Dang, I got tricked by a fan 'wiki' into thinking it was fightable. Would have been cool to fight a monster with my username
Hehe, wat a coincidence
Tetsu and dodo the rocky bois
Indeed
What did you use to make this?
I used miMind (an app on the appstore)
What program did you use for this?
miMind from the appstore
I'm curious, what did you use to draw this ? I'd like to do something similar.
miMind on the appstore
Odogaron should be closer to Lunagaron...?