Implicating cecaelia → cephalopod
Link to implication

Reason:

Mentioned here.

Like the lamia, a cecaelia is a half anthro/humanoid and half other creature - in this case a cephalopod. By definition, it is always a cephalopod.

Related aliases

• octomaid → cecaelia (different term, same creature)

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
By definition, it is always a cephalopod.

What definition says this? Similar to my arguments on Lamia needing to be more flexible, what if a human had the legs of a spider--but only the legs. They would look much like an unwebbed cecaelia then.

The "Warriors of Myth" wiki that talks about mythological creatures mentions Cecaelia being an entirely made up term. The closest I can find is a mention of it being a modification of cilia, which would refer to the tentacles.

Furrin_Gok said:
What definition says this? Similar to my arguments on Lamia needing to be more flexible, what if a human had the legs of a spider--but only the legs. They would look much like an unwebbed cecaelia then.

The "Warriors of Myth" wiki that talks about mythological creatures mentions Cecaelia being an entirely made up term. The closest I can find is a mention of it being a modification of cilia, which would refer to the tentacles.

Spider/arachnid legs are pretty distinct and it would be incredibly easy to distinguish from cephalopod tentacles. Arachnid limbs are segmented, whereas a cecaelia's limbs are tentacles, non-segmented, and covered in suction cups. The only animals that we currently know of in the real world atm that have suction cup covered tentacles are cephalopods (squids and octopi, to be more specitic). A character with arachnid legs as a bottom half would look entirely different from a character with flexible, cup covered tentacle legs.

Anyways, getting less specific and more general, layman here: what's the average person going to see when they see suction cup covered tentacles? Cephalopods.

Edit: Apologies, forgot the definitions from various sources:

d20pfsrd

In place of legs, this handsome humanoid sports an octopus's eight writhing tentacles.

Cecaelias are intelligent human-octopus hybrids that hunt coastlines and ocean reefs. A cecaelia’s humanoid upper body varies individually but generally reflects the features of the inhabitants of the nearest humanoid settlements.

Dungeons wiki)

Also known as octofolk or sea witches, cecaella are mermaid-type creatures whose lower half is that of a squid or octopus instead of a fish.They have greater land mobility their their fish-tailed cousins, and are often seen intermingling with coastal town folk.

PathfinderWiki

Cecaelias are proud, unpredictable sentient hybrids of humans and octopuses

SuccuWiki

Cecaelia or an octopus person, is a composite mythical being, appearing occasionally in art, literature, and multimedia; combining the head, arms and torso of a woman (more rarely a man) and, from the lower torso down, the tentacles of an octopus or squid as a form of mermaid or sea demon. They are sometimes referred to as "sea witches".

Since 2007, the term cecaelia has become more-frequently used online in the naming of these hybrid creatures.

Also here's a source from an actual, physical book: Discovering the Magic Kingdom: an Unofficial Disneyland Vacation Guide

During planning for the film, Ursula was not originally designed as a cecaelia (a composite mythical being, combining the head, arms, and torso of a woman, and from the lower torso down, the tentacles of an octopus or squid as a form of mermaid or sea demon.

Also minor, but it's listed on the wikipedia page on hybrid creatures in folklore as a Half-human, half-octopus hybrid

Again, most of those are either D&D, which gets modified all the time, or from sources that mentioned it being a recent term.
The exception to that is an unofficial disney guide, which look at that, is also recent.

Furrin_Gok said:
Again, most of those are either D&D, which gets modified all the time, or from sources that mentioned it being a recent term.
The exception to that is an unofficial disney guide, which look at that, is also recent.

You never mentioned anything about the definition being recent nullifying the definitions? There are several species terms that are recent but still generally agreed upon to the terms for said things (see: some hybrid names, cabbit for example, but there are several others). It being a newer term doesn't make it incorrect imho.

The unofficial guidebook, while not 100% official, still took their info from disney sources when it came to character design; at least, in this case anyways.

Regardless, all sources you're going to google have this generally agreed upon definition (and yes, while D&D and wikis are edited or changed often, this is still the agreed upon definition that the average PUBLIC defines it as), so I don't think the implication is that out of left field. The average person is going to see it as cephalopod related at first glance, and with TWYS in play I don't see this as much of a problem or that bad of an implication.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
You never mentioned anything about the definition being recent nullifying the definitions? There are several species terms that are recent but still generally agreed upon to the terms for said things (see: some hybrid names, cabbit for example, but there are several others). It being a newer term doesn't make it incorrect imho.

The unofficial guidebook, while not 100% official, still took their info from disney sources when it came to character design; at least, in this case anyways.

Regardless, all sources you're going to google have this generally agreed upon definition (and yes, while D&D and wikis are edited or changed often, this is still the agreed upon definition that the average PUBLIC defines it as), so I don't think the implication is that out of left field. The average person is going to see it as cephalopod related at first glance, and with TWYS in play I don't see this as much of a problem or that bad of an implication.

Actually, we don't use hybrid names. They should always be tagged their base two forms and use the hybrid tag.

A term being recent doesn't mean it's outright invalid, it means it's not set in stone. Why not broaden it while we're here?

Furrin_Gok said:
A term being recent doesn't mean it's outright invalid, it means it's not set in stone. Why not broaden it while we're here?

While that isn't a bad thing to think abt, I get where you're coming from, I don't think I've ever seen a cecaelia that WASNT a cephalopod/cephalopod-based.

Also with hybrid names I seem to get mixed messages on this; I've seen official hybrid names be used (alongside the species they're hybridized with, of course). See: liger, mule, zonkey, etc. So to me it seems they use both the hybrid name AND the base species, if they're popular/well known enough hybrids and not some really rare unheard of hybrid.

Personally, I hate the name cecaelia.

The "Warriors of Myth" wiki is for a roleplaying website... It claims that the cecaelia is from "Asia and Native America myth", but near as I can tell, all of the mythologies it mentions are ... anything mentioning octopus beings.

The page even mentions some Native american tribes that had these creatures in their mythology, but every type I google "Nootka Cecaelia" or "Nootka octopus" generally I get COMPLETELY irrelevant information, or I get the wikia again.

they even mention:

Though, it should be noted, the term 'Cecaelia' is never used within the course of the original mythology. It is a product of modern fiction featuring this race of creatures, most likely as a solution to the phrase 'Octopus Person', which some consider to be awkward, and a mouthful.

They're not lore experts.

Then there's the D&D page on Cecaelia. Earliest reference isss.. 2011

The succubus wiki seems like a way more... reliable information source. (or at least one that is better about sourcing information) ... they list off a whole lot of octopus people in various media, but none of them are CALLED Cecaelia... they do link the wikipedia page for 'Cecaelia'... which... was deleted and moved to "octopus person"... which has also been deleted.

Wikipedia does have a page for sea witch -- a character from general european folklore that have a magical bond with the ocean. they may be a mermaid, a selkie, or an ordinary human, typicallly-- no octopussing. This page also describes the little mermaid character has a "mythological hybrid" who is "half-human, half-octopus"...

Basically saying...

Cecaelia is a modern invented word. I do not know how this word came about. It's not really based off of any octopus related meaning, or cepholapod words... it's just... a word.

Also minor, but it's listed on the wikipedia page on hybrid creatures in folklore as a Half-human, half-octopus hybrid

These creatures are not... well.. the top of the page mentions that "Hybrids not found in classical mythology but developed in the context of modern pop culture are listed in a separate section. "

Cecaelia is in that modern hybrid section. It's not based on mythology. Very few people know this word, otherwise the search results would have a lot more search results, rather than jsut wikis...

I much prefer octomaid or octofolk or whatever.

Furrin_Gok said:
Actually, we don't use hybrid names. They should always be tagged their base two forms and use the hybrid tag.

(this is my unofficial opinion..)

That depends -- if it is from a franchise of some sort, they typically are allowed a tag of their own. cabbit_(tenchi_muyo) are from Techi Muyo, which was a *very* popular anime franchise back in the 90's.. it has about 150 episodes across 4 TV series, Something like 4 or 5 OVA series, 4 movies, and 5 different "spin off series" and at least 22 volumes of manga.

post #409 <-- Cabbits. very distinctly a species of it's own though.

That also said, fictional "fan species" are also allowed a tag of their own, presuming that they are:

• Visually distinct - a wolf with a shark fin is not worth being a "Wark"... however, if your "wark" looks like, say.. post #1604168 or post #496075, then there may be room for an exception.
• A populated *species*... not a character with a unique species. If Sammy is the only Wark in existence and 100% of wark posts are sammy_the_wark posts, then there's no point. hybrid wolf shark instead. However, if there are several people who have Wark characters, then, there may be room for an exception.
• There must be more than "a few" pictures of this species. If warks are something that only Sammy and her 3 friends draw, then, maybe not so much. On the other hand.. sergal has more than 4000 posts, for example, despite looking a lot like a wark :P
• also, it should go without saying, but all warks should look like members of the same species, as opposed to what you get if you search for hybrid wolf shark

It's pretty case by case, but we do allow for hybrid names, assuming meet above criterea or are part of a franchise. (at least in my opinion.)

To conclude: I hate "Cecaelia" as a word. its not well known enough. it's made up. It's a D&D species. I'd prefer "octofolk" or "octomaid" or "Cephalfolk" or something. Anything that isn't some made up word based on.. not any words you'd associate with octopuses or squid.

SnowWolf said:
To conclude: I hate "Cecaelia" as a word. its not well known enough. it's made up. It's a D&D species. I'd prefer "octofolk" or "octomaid" or "Cephalfolk" or something. Anything that isn't some made up word based on.. not any words you'd associate with octopuses or squid.

Something along the -folk name would work maybe; I was mainly against octomaid because of the gendered implications (this is why mermaid is aliased to merfolk) and was up for using cecaelia due to it pretty much being the only (somewhat common) term for the beings, as most refer them to "octopus mermaids", usually, and not its own cohesive specific thing.

Cephalfolk or Octofolk doesn't sound too terrible, whichever one is preferred. And then of course it'd have a cephalopod implication and have cecaelia/octomaid aliased to it.

What about something like taurmaid, where it's a mermaid design but with "legs" (mainly tentacles, what about shrimp and crustaceans?)?

Furrin_Gok said:
What about something like taurmaid, where it's a mermaid design but with "legs" (mainly tentacles, what about shrimp and crustaceans?)?

Honestly to me the merfolk lable fits just fine with shrimps and crustaceans, because their small legs differ immensely from the long tentacles of an octofolk. They're comparable to, say, fins/dorsal fins/frills/etc on cetacean based merfolk.

While I see what you had in mind, having taurmaid I feel would be too broad because, by definition, it includes merfolk also, when really the only thing connecting them is a differing bottom half and being marine, while their general appearance and anatomy differs quite a bit.

There's been discussion on a broad general tag for body types that are half of something else (don't quite remember the name, apologies) and we could pair that with merfolk or octofolk or something to get close to what "taurmaid" might achieve, so that a search of ~merfolk ~octofolk ~marine InsertNameOfThatBodyTypeTagHere would get results of all the -maid/-folk creatures without tag redundancy