I have been making a wide brimmed bucket hat for my mom for during the summer, and am having a difficult time getting the brim to stay upright. I was following the JJ’s Sunny Brim Hat pattern by Deena Zotto. I was using cotton yarn. It was thicker than the one in the pattern, but I was meeting the gauge listed in the pattern. I used two rows with wire. Hat was still floppy, so I tried to use starch on the hat. After starching and blocking it is now floppier than before. Any suggestions? Maybe I need to add more starch, or a thicker gauge of wire? It looked like it was going so well…

Art by Bob Nicholls
Nowadays, when we envision the words “prey,” among modern mammalian fauna, few taxa come to mind as quickly as the hoofed mammals, better known as the ungulates. Indeed, for the better part of their entire evolutionary history, the ungulates have become entirely indistinguishable from the term “prey.” Across their two major modern branches, the artiodactyls (the “even-toed ungulates,” such as bovids, pigs, deer, hippos and giraffes) and the perissodactyls (the “odd-toed ungulates,” including horses, rhinos and tapir), the ungulates too have created an empire spanning nearly every continent, establishing themselves as the the dominant herbivores throughout their entire range. However, as a price for such success, their lot as herbivores have forced them into an unenviable position: being the food for the predators. Indeed, throughout the diets of most modern predators, ungulates make up the majority, if not the entirety, of their diet, becoming their counterparts in this evolutionary dance of theirs. They have become the lamb to their wolf, the zebra to their lion, the stag to their tiger. If there is a predator in need of lunch, chances are that there is an ungulate there to provide it. Of course, such a dynamic is not necessarily a recent innovation. For the last 15-20 million years, across much of the world, both new and old, the ungulates have served as prey for these predators through it all. Over the course of whole epochs, these two groups have played into these roles for millions of years, coevolving with each other in an eons-long game of cat-and-mouse. The shoes they fill are not new, but have existed for ages, and within their niches they have cultivated their roles to perfection. Indeed, with such a tenured history, it seems hardly surprising the ungulates are wholly inseparable from the terms “prey,” itself.
However, while this is the case now, as it has been for the last 15-20 million years, go back far enough, and we see that this dynamic is not as set in stone as we would think. Indeed, back during the Eocene and Oligocene, during the very earliest days of age of mammals, things were very different for the ungulates. While today they are considered little more than food for modern predators, during these olden days, the ungulates weren’t quite so benign. In fact, far from being fodder for top predators, the ungulates had turned the tables, instead becoming top predators themselves. Indeed, though nearly unheard of today, throughout much of the Eocene and Oligocene, carnivorous ungulates thrived in abundance, developing specializations for catching large prey and establishing themselves as top predators that competed alongside the more traditional carnivores, and even dominating them in some instances. Given such success, it’s no wonder that multiple such clades had arisen during this time. Such predators included the arctocyonids, a lineage of (ironically) hoof-less ungulates with large jaws and sharp teeth for capturing large prey. There were also the mesonychians, a lineage of dog-like ungulates with massive skulls and jaws that allowed them to reign as the top predator across much of the Eocene.
However, among these various lineages, one stands stands out among the rest, by far. Arising during the Eocene, this lineage, though superficially resembling modern pigs, hailed from one an ancient lineage of artiodactyls far removed from swine or most other ungulates in general, with few close relatives alive today. Through perhaps not the most predatory of the bunch, it was among the most formidable, as their superficially pig-like appearance came with giant predatory jaws and teeth unlike anything from the modern era. And of course, as if all of that wasn’t enough, this lineage also went on to earn arguably one of the most badass nicknames of any lineage of mammals, period. These predators, of course, were the entelodonts, a.k.a the “hell-pigs.” More so than any other predatory ungulate lineage, these formidable ungulates were the ones to turn the current paradigm upside down, becoming some of the largest and most dominant carnivores in their landscape, even with (and often in spite of) the presence of more traditional predators. Through impressive size, fearsome teeth and sheer tenacity, these animals became the top dogs of their time, ruling as behemoth-kings of their Paleogene kingdoms, domineering all comers, and throughout the ranks, one entelodont in particular demonstrated such dominance the best. Though not the largest or most powerful of their kind, it is one of the most iconic, being among the most well-known members of its lineage to date. Moreover, this enteledont also has some of the most complete life histories ever seen out of this clade, with its brutality and predatory prowess being displayed in the fossil record in a way seen in no other member of its kind. More than anything else, however, it was this predator that best turned the notion of “ungulates being prey” on its head, living in an environment that bore some of the largest carnivoran hypercarnivores to date and still reigning as the undisputed top predator of its domain. This fearsome beast was none other than Archaeotherium, icon of the entelodonts, terror of the Oligocene American west and undisputed king of the White River badlands.
The rise of Archaeotherium (and of entelodonts in general) is closely tied to the ascendancy of carnivorous ungulates as a whole, one of the earliest evolutionary success stories of the entire Cenozoic. Having become their own derived clade since the late Cretaceous, the ungulates were remarkably successful during the early Paleogene, as they were among the first mammalian clades to reach large sizes during those early days after the non-avian dinosaurs had gone extinct. As such, it was with incredible swiftness that, as the Paleogene progressed, the ungulates swooped upon the various niches left empty by the K-Pg mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs. This of course included the herbivorous niches we would know them for today, but this also included other, much more carnivore roles. Indeed, early on during the Paleogene, it was the ungulates that first seized the roles of large mammalian predators, becoming some the earliest large mammalian carnivores to ever live, well before even the carnivorans. Such predators included the arctocyonids, a lineage of vaguely dog-like, hoof-less ungulates with robust jaws and sharpened teeth that acted as some of earliest large carnivores of the Paleocene, with genera such as Arctocyon mumak getting up to the size of big cats. Even more prolific were the mesonychids. More so than what pretty much any other lineage of predator, it was the mesonychids that would stand out as the earliest dominant predators of the early Cenozoic. Growing up to the size of bears and with enormous, bone-crushing jaws, the mesonychids were among the most powerful and successful predators on the market at that time, with a near-global range and being capable of subjugating just about any other predator in their environments. Indeed, they, along with other carnivorous ungulates (as well as ungulates in general), were experiencing a golden age during this time, easily being the most prolific predators of the age. Given such prevalence, it should be no surprise that there would be yet another lineage of predatory ungulates would throw their hat into the ring, and by early Eocene, that contender would none other than the entelodonts.
The very first entelodonts had arisen from artiodactyl ancestors during the Eocene epoch, at a time when artiodactyls were far more diverse and bizarre than they are now. Through today known from their modern herbivorous representatives such as bovines, deer, and antelope, during the Paleocene and Eocene, the artiodacyls, as with most ungulates of that time, were stronger and far more predaceous, particularly when it came to one such clade of artiodactyls, the cetacodontamorphs. Only known today from hippos and another group of artiodactyls (one which will become relevant later), the cetacodantomorphs emerged out of Asia around 55 million years ago, at around the same time that artiodactyls themselves had made their debut. These animals included the first truly predatory artiodactyls, with many of them possessing large skulls with powerful jaws and sharp, predatory teeth. Among their ranks included animals as puny as Indohyus, a piscivorous artiodactyl the size of a cat, to as formidable as Andrewsarchus, a giant, bison-sized predator often touted as one of the largest predatory mammals to ever live. Given such a predatory disposition, it wouldn’t be long until this clade produced a lineage of truly diverse, truly successful predators, and by around 40 million years ago, that is exactly what they did, as it was at that time that the entelodonts themselves first emerged. From their Asian homeland, the entelodonts spread across the world, spreading through not only most of Eurasia but also colonizing North America as well, with genera such as Brachyhyops being found across both continents. Here, in this North American frontier, the entelodonts began to diversify further, turning into their most successful and formidable forms yet, and it was around the late Eocene and early Oligocene that Archaeotherium itself had entered the scene.
Just from a passing glance at Archaeotherium, it is clear how exactly it (as well as the other entelodonts) earned the nickname of “hell-pigs.” It was a bruiser for starters; its body bore a robust, pig-like physique, with prominent neural spines and their associated musculature forming a hump around the shoulder region, similar to the hump of a bison. With such a bulky physique came with it impressive size; the average A. mortoni had a head-body length of roughly 1.6-2.0 m (5.3-6.6 ft), a shoulder height of 1.2 m (4 ft) and a body mass of around 180 kg (396 lb) in weight (Boardman & Secord, 2013; Joeckel, 1990). At such sizes, an adult Archaeotherium the size of a large male black bear. However, they had the potential to get even bigger. While most Archaeotherium specimens were around the size described above, a select few specimens, labeled under the synonymous genus “Megachoerus,” are found to be much larger, with skulls getting up to 66% longer than average A. mortoni specimens (Foss, 2001; Joeckel, 1990). At such sizes and using isometric scaling, such massive Archaeotherium specimens would attained body lengths over 2.5 m (8.2 ft) and would have reached weighs well over 500 kg (1100 lb), or as big as a mature male polar bear. Indeed, at such sizes, it is already abundantly evident that Archaeotherium is a force to be recorded with.
However, there was more to these formidable animals than sheer size alone. Behind all that bulk was an astoundingly swift and graceful predator, especially in terms of locomotion. Indeed, the hoofed feet of Archaeotherium, along with other entelodonts, sported several adaptations that gave it incredible locomotive efficiency, essentially turning it into a speed demon of the badlands. Such adaptations include longer distal leg elements (e.g. the radius and tibia) than their proximal counterparts (e.g. the humerus and femur), fusion of the radius and ulna for increased running efficiency, the loss of the clavicle (collar-bone) to allow for greater leg length, the loss of the acromion to enhance leg movement along the fore-and-aft plane, the loss of digits to reduce the mass of the forelimb, the fusion of the ectocuneiform and the mesocuneiform wrist-bones, among many other such traits (Theodore, 1996) . Perhaps most significant of these adaptations is the evolution of the “double-pulley astragalus (ankle-bone),” a specialized modification of the ankle that, while restricting rotation and side-to-side movement at the ankle-joint, allows for greater rotation in the fore-and-aft direction, thus allowing for more more powerful propulsion from the limbs, faster extension and retraction of the limbs and overall greater locomotive efficiency (Foss, 2001). Of course, such a trait was not only found in entelodonts but in artiodactyls as a whole, likely being a response to predatory pressures from incumbent predatory clades arising at the same time as the artiodactyls (Foss, 2001). However, in the case of the entelodonts, such adaptations were not used for merely escaping predators. Rather, they were used to for another, much more lethal effect…
Such notions are further reinforced by the entelodonts most formidable aspect, none either than their fearsome jaws, and in this respect, Archaeotherium excelled. Both for its size and in general, the head of Archaeotherium was massive, measuring 40-50 cm (1.3-1.6 ft) in length among average A. mortoni specimens, to up to 78 cm (~2.6 ft) in the larger “Megachoerus” specimens (Joeckel, 1990). Such massive skulls were supported and supplemented by equally massive neck muscles and ligaments, which attached to massive neural spines on the anterior thoracic vertebrae akin to a bisons hump as well as to the sternum, allowing Archaeotherium to keep its head aloft despite the skulls massive size (Effinger, 1998). Of course, with such a massive skull, it should come as no surprise that such skulls housed exceptionally formidable jaws as well, and indeed, the bite of Archaeotherium was an especially deadly one. Its zygomatic arches (cheek-bones) and its temporal fossa were enlarged and expanded, indicative of massive temporalis muscles that afforded Archaeotherium astoundingly powerful bites (Joeckel, 1990). This is further augmented by Archaeotherium’s massive jugal flanges (bony projections of the cheek), which supported powerful masseter muscles which enhanced chewing and mastication, as well as an enlarged postorbital bar that reinforced the skull against torsional stresses (Foss, 2001). Last but not least, powerful jaws are supplemented by an enlarged gape, facilitated by a low coronoid process and enlarged posterior mandibular tubercles (bony projections originating from the lower jaw), which provided an insertion site for sternum-to-mandible jaw abduction muscles, allowing for a more forceful opening of the jaw (Foss, 2001). All together, such traits suggest a massive and incredibly fearsome bite, perhaps the most formidable of any animal in its environment.
Of course, none of such traits are especially indicative of a predatory lifestyle. Indeed, many modern non-predatory ungulates, like hippos, pigs and peccaries, also possess large, formidable skulls and jaws. However, in peeling back the layers, it is found there was more to the skull of Archaeotherium that lies in store. Indeed, when inspecting the animal closely, a unique mosaic of features is revealed; traits that make it out to be much more lethal than the average artiodactyl. On one hand, Archaeotherium possessed many traits similar to those of herbivores animals, as is expected of ungulates. For instance, its jaw musculature that allowed the lower jaw of Archaeotherium a full side-to-side chewing motion as in herbivores (whereas most carnivores can only move their lower jaw up and down)(Effinger, 1998). On the other hand, Archaeotherium wielded many other traits far more lethal in their morphology, less akin to a herbivore and far more akin to a bonafide predator. For instance, the aforementioned enlarged gape of Archaeotherium is a bizarre trait on a supposed herbivore, as such animals do not need large gapes to eat vegetation and thus have smaller, more restricted gapes. Conversely, many predatory lineages have comparatively large gapes, as larger gapes allow for the the jaws to grab on to more effectively larger objects, namely large prey animals (Joeckel, 1990).
Such a juxtaposition, however, is most evident when discussing the real killing instruments of Archaeotherium — the teeth. More so than any facet of this animal, the teeth of Archaeotherium are the real stars of the show, showing both how alike it was compared to its herbivores counterparts and more importantly, how it couldn’t be more different. For instance, the molars of Archaeotherium were quite similar to modern herbivores ungulates, in that they were robust, bunodont, and were designed for crushing and grinding, similar in form and function to modern ungulates like peccaries (Joeckel, 1990). However, while the molars give the impression that Archaeotherium was a herbivore, the other teeth tell a very different story. The incisors, for example, were enlarged, sharpened, and fully interlocked (as opposed to the flat-topped incisors seen in herbivores ungulates), creating an incisor array that was seemingly ill-suited for cropping vegetation and much more adept at for gripping, puncturing and cutting (Joeckel, 1990). Even more formidable were the canines. Like the modern pigs from which entelodonts derived their nicknames, the canines of Archaeotherium were sharp and enlarged to form prominent tusk-like teeth, but unlike pigs, they were rounded in cross-section (similar to modern carnivores like big cats, indicating more durable canines that can absorb and resist torsional forces, such as those from struggling prey) and were serrated to form a distinct cutting edge (Effinger, 1998; Joeckel, 1990; Ruff & Van Valkenburgh, 1987). These canines, along with the incisors, interlock to stabilize the jaws while biting and dismantling in a carnivore-like fashion. More strikingly, the canines also seem to act as “occlusal guides,” wherein the canines help align the movement and position of the rear teeth as they come together, allowing for a more efficient shearing action by the rear teeth. This function is seen most prevalently modern carnivorous mammals, and is evidenced by the canine tooth-wear, which is also analogous to modern predators like bears and canids (Joeckel, 1990). Indeed, going off such teeth alone, it is clear that Archaeotherium is far more predatory than expected of an ungulate. However, the real stars of the show, the teeth that truly betray the predatory nature of these ungulates, are the premolars. Perhaps the most carnivore-like teeth in the entelodont’s entire tooth row, the premolars of Archaeotherium, particularly the anterior premolars, are laterally compressed, somewhat conical in shape, and are weakly serrated to bear a cutting edge, giving them a somewhat carnivorous form and function of shearing and slicing (Effinger, 1998). Most strikingly of all, the premolars of Archaeotherium bear unique features similar not to modern herbivores, but to durophagous carnivores like hyenas, particularly apical wear patterns, highly thickened enamel, “zigzag-shaped” enamel prism layers (Hunter-Schraeger bands) on the premolars which is also seen in osteophagous animals like hyenas, and an interlocking premolar interface wherein linear objects (such as bones) inserted into jaws from the side would be pinned between the premolars and crushed (Foss, 2001). Taken together, these features do not suggest a diet of grass or vegetation like other ungulates. Rather, they suggest a far more violent diet, one including flesh as well as hard, durable foods, particularly bone. All in all, the evidence is clear. Archaeotherium and other entelodonts, unlike the rest of their artiodactyl kin, were not the passive herbivores as we envision ungulates today. Rather, they were willing, unrepentant meat-eaters that had a taste for flesh as well as foliage.
Of course, even with such lines of evidence, its hard to conclude that Archaeotherium was a true predator. After all, its wide gape and durophagous teeth could have just as easily been used for scavenging or even to eat tough plant matter such as seeds or nuts, as in peccaries and pigs, which themselves share many of the same adaptations as Archaeotherium, include the more carnivorous ones (e.g. the wide gape, using the canines as an occlusal guide, etc.). How exactly do we know that these things were veritable predators and not pretenders to the title. To this end, there is yet one last piece of evidence, one that puts on full display the predatory prowess of Archaeotherium —evidence of a kill itself. Found within oligocene-aged sediment in what is now Wyoming, a collection of various fossil remains was found, each belonging to the ancient sheep-sized camel Poebrotherium, with many of the skeletal remains being disarticulated and even missing whole hindlimbs or even entire rear halves of their body. Tellingly, many of the remains bear extensive bite marks and puncture wounds across their surface. Upon close examination, the spacing and size of the punctures leave only one culprit: Archaeotherium. Of course, such an event could still have been scavenging; the entelodonts were consuming the remains of already dead, decomposed camels, explaining the bite marks. What was far more telling, however, was where the bite marks were found. In addition bite marks being found on the torso and lumbar regions of the camels, various puncture wounds were found on the skull and neck, which were otherwise uneaten. Scavengers rarely feast on the head to begin with; there is very little worthwhile meat on it besides the brain, cheek-muscles and eyes, and even if they did feed on the skull and neck, they would still eat it wholesale, not merely bite it and then leave it otherwise untouched. Indeed, it was clear that this was no mere scavenging event. Rather than merely consuming these camels, Archaeotherium was actively preying upon and killing them, dispatching them via a crushing bite to the skull or neck before dismembering and even bisecting the hapless camels with their powerful jaws to preferentially feast on their hindquarters (likely by swallowing the hindquarters whole, as the pelvis of Poebrotherium was coincidentally the perfect width for Archaeotherium to devour whole), eventually discarding the leftovers in meat caches for later consumption (Sundell, 1999). With this finding, such a feat of brutality leaves no doubt in ones mind as to what the true nature of Archaeotherium was. This was no herbivore, nor was it a simple scavenger. This was an active, rapacious predator, the most powerful in its entire ecosystem.
Indeed, with such brutal evidence of predation frozen in time, combined with various dental, cranial, and post cranial adaptations of this formidable animal, it’s possible to paint a picture of how this formidable creature lived. Though an omnivore by trade, willing and able to feast on plant matter such as grass, roots and tubers, Archaeotherium was also a wanton predator that took just about any prey it wanted. Upon detecting its prey, it approached its vicim from ambush before launching itself at blazing speed. From there, its cursorial, hoofed legs, used by other ungulates for escape predation, were here employed to capture prey, carrying it at great speeds as it caught up to its quarry. Having closed the distance with its target, it was then that the entelodont brought its jaws to bear, grabbing hold of the victim with powerful jaws and gripping teeth to bring it to a screeching halt. If the victim is lucky, Archaeotherium will then kill it quickly with a crushing bite to the skull or neck, puncturing the brain or spinal cord and killing its target instantly. If not, the victim is eaten alive, torn apart while it’s still kicking, as modern boars will do today. In any case, incapacitated prey are subsequently dismantled, with the entelodont using its entire head and heavily-muscled necks to bite into and pull apart its victim in devastating “puncture-and pull’ bites (Foss, 2001). Prey would then finally be consumed starting at the hindquarters, with not even the bones of its prey being spared. Such brutality, though far from clean, drove home a singular truth: that during this time, ungulates were not just prey, that they were not the mere “predator-fodder” we know them as today. rather, they themselves were the predators themselves, dominating as superb hunters within their domain and even suppressing clades we know as predators today, least of all the carnivorans. Indeed, during this point in time, the age of the carnivorous ungulates had hit their stride, and more specifically, the age of entelodonts had begun.
Of course, more so than any other entelodont, Archaeotherium took to this new age with gusto. Archaeotherium lived from 35-28 million years ago during the late Eocene and early Oligocene in a locality known today as the White River Badlands, a fossil locality nestled along the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Though a chalky, barren landscape today, during the time of Archaeotherium, the White River Badlands was a swamp-like floodplain crisscrossed with rivers and interspersed with by a mosaic of forests concentrated around waterways, open woodlands and open plains. As with most ecosystems with such a lush disposition, this locale teemed with life, with ancient hornless rhinos, small horse-like hyracodonts and early camels roaming the open habitats while giant brontotheres, small early horses and strange, sheep-like ungulates called merycoidodonts (also known as “oreodonts”) dwelled within the dense forests. Within this locale, Archaeotherium stalked the open woodlands and riparian forests of its domain. Here, it acted as a dominant predator and scavenger across is territory, filling a niche similar to modern grizzly bears but far more predatory. Among its preferred food items would be plant matter such as roots, foliage and nuts, but also meat in the form of carrion or freshly caught prey. In this respect, smaller ungulates such as the fleet-footed camel Poebrotherium, a known prey item of Archaeotherium, would have made a for choice prey, as its small size would make it easy for Archaeotherium to dispatch with its powerful jaws, while the entelodonts swift legs gave it the speed necessary to keep pace with its agile prey.
However, the entelodont didn’t have such a feast all to itself. Just as the badlands teemed with herbivores, so too did it teem with rival predators. Among their ranks included fearsome predators such as Hyaenodon, a powerful, vaguely dog-like predator up to the size of wolves (as in H. horridus) or even lions (as in the Eocene-aged H. megaloides, which was replaced by H. horridus during the Oligocene). Armed with a massive head, fierce jaws and a set of knife-like teeth that could cut down even large prey in seconds, these were some of the most formidable predators on the landscape. There were also the nimravids, cat-like carnivorans that bore saber-teeth to kill large prey in seconds, and included the likes of the lynx-sized Dinictis, the leopard-sized Hoplophoneus and even the jaguar-sized Eusmilus. Furthermore, there were amphicyonids, better known as the bear-dogs. Though known from much larger forms later on in their existence, during the late Eocene and Oligocene, they were much smaller and acted as the “canid-analogues” of the ecosystem, filling a role similar to wolves or coyotes. Last but not least, there were the bathornithid birds, huge cariamiform birds related to modern seriemas but much larger, which filled a niche similar to modern seriemas or secretary birds, albeit on a much larger scale. Given such competition, it would seem that Archaeotherium would have its hands full. However, things are not as they appear. For starters, habitat differences would mitigate high amounts of competition, as both Hyaenodon and the various nimravids occupy more specialized ecological roles (being a plains-specialist and forest-specialist, respectively) than did Archaeotherium, providing a buffer to stave off competition: More importantly, however, none of the aforementioned predators were simply big enough to take Archaeotherium on. During the roughly 7 million years existence of Archaeotherium, the only carnivore that matched it in size was H. megaloides, and even that would have an only applied to average A. mortoni individuals, not to the much larger, bison-sized “Megachoerus” individuals. The next largest predator at that point would be the jaguars-sized Eusmilus (specifically E. adelos) which would have only been a bit more than half the size of even an average A. mortoni. Besides that, virtually every other predator on the landscape was simply outclassed by the much larger entelodont in terms of size and brute strength. As such, within its domain, Archaeotherium had total, unquestioned authority, dominating the other predators in the landscape and likely stealing their kills as well. In fact, just about the only threat Archaeotherium had was other Archaeotherium, as fossil bite marks suggest that this animal regularly and fraglantly engaged in intraspecific combat, usually through face-biting and possibly even jaw-wrestling (Effinger, 1998; Tanke & Currie, 1998). Nevertheless, it was clear that Archaeotherium was the undisputed king of the badlands; in a landscape of hyaenodonts and carnivorans galore, it was a hoofed ungulate that reigned supreme.
However, such a reign would not last. As the Eocene transitioned into the Eocene, the planet underwent an abrupt cooling and drying phase known as Eocene-Oligocene Transition or more simply the Grande Coupure. This change in climate would eliminate the sprawling wetlands and river systems that Archaeotherium had been depending on, gradually replacing it with drier and more open habitats. To its credit, Archaeotherium did manage to hang on, persisting well after the Grand-Coupure had taken place, but in the end the damage had been done; Archaeotherium was a dead-man-walking. Eventually, by around 28 million years ago, Archaeotherium would go extinct, perishing due to this change in global climate (Gillham, 2019). Entelodonts as a whole would persist into the Miocene, producing some of their largest forms ever known in the form of the bison-sized Daeodon (which was itself even more carnivorous than Archaeotherium), however they too would meet the same fate as their earlier cousins. By around 15-20 million years ago, entelodonts as a whole would go extinct. However, while the entelodonts may have perished, this was not the end of carnivorous ungulates as a whole. Recall that the cetacodontamorphs, the lineage of artiodactyls that produced the entelodonts, left behind two living descendants. The first among them were the hippos, themselves fairly frequent herbivores. The second of such lineage, however, was a different story. Emerging out of South Asia, this lineage of piscivorous cetacodontamorphs, in a an attempt to further specialize for the fish-hunting lifestyle, began to delve further and further into the water, becoming more and more aquatic and the millennia passed by. At a certain point, these carnivorous artiodactlys had become something completely unrecognizable from their original hoofed forms. Their skin became hairless and their bodies became streamlined for life in water. Their hoofed limbs grew into giant flippers for steering in the water and their previously tiny tails became massive and sported giant tail flukes for aquatic propulsion. Their noses even moved to the tip of their head, becoming a blowhole that would be signature to this clade as a whole. Indeed, this clade was none other than the modern whales, themselves derived, carnivorous ungulates that had specialized for a life in the water, and in doing so, became the some of the most dominant aquatic predators across the globe for millions of years. Indeed, though long gone, the legacy of the entelodonts and of predatory ungulates as a whole, a legacy Archaeotherium itself had helped foster, lives on in these paragons of predatory prowess, showing that the ungulates are more than just the mere “prey” that they are often made out to be. Moreover, given the success that carnivorous ungulates had enjoyed in the past and given how modern omnivorous ungulates like boar dabble in predation themselves, perhaps, in the distant future, this planet may see the rise of carnivorous ungulates once again, following in the footsteps left behind by Archaeotherium and the other predatory ungulates all those millions of years ago.

Art by Bob Nicholls
Nowadays, when we envision the words “prey,” among modern mammalian fauna, few taxa come to mind as quickly as the hoofed mammals, better known as the ungulates. Indeed, for the better part of their entire evolutionary history, the ungulates have become entirely indistinguishable from the term “prey.” Across their two major modern branches, the artiodactyls (the “even-toed ungulates,” such as bovids, pigs, deer, hippos and giraffes) and the perissodactyls (the “odd-toed ungulates,” including horses, rhinos and tapir), the ungulates too have created an empire spanning nearly every continent, establishing themselves as the the dominant herbivores throughout their entire range. However, as a price for such success, their lot as herbivores have forced them into an unenviable position: being the food for the predators. Indeed, throughout the diets of most modern predators, ungulates make up the majority, if not the entirety, of their diet, becoming their counterparts in this evolutionary dance of theirs. They have become the lamb to their wolf, the zebra to their lion, the stag to their tiger. If there is a predator in need of lunch, chances are that there is an ungulate there to provide it. Of course, such a dynamic is not necessarily a recent innovation. For the last 15-20 million years, across much of the world, both new and old, the ungulates have served as prey for these predators through it all. Over the course of whole epochs, these two groups have played into these roles for millions of years, coevolving with each other in an eons-long game of cat-and-mouse. The shoes they fill are not new, but have existed for ages, and within their niches they have cultivated their roles to perfection. Indeed, with such a tenured history, it seems hardly surprising the ungulates are wholly inseparable from the terms “prey,” itself.
However, while this is the case now, as it has been for the last 15-20 million years, go back far enough, and we see that this dynamic is not as set in stone as we would think. Indeed, back during the Eocene and Oligocene, during the very earliest days of age of mammals, things were very different for the ungulates. While today they are considered little more than food for modern predators, during these olden days, the ungulates weren’t quite so benign. In fact, far from being fodder for top predators, the ungulates had turned the tables, instead becoming top predators themselves. Indeed, though nearly unheard of today, throughout much of the Eocene and Oligocene, carnivorous ungulates thrived in abundance, developing specializations for catching large prey and establishing themselves as top predators that competed alongside the more traditional carnivores, and even dominating them in some instances. Given such success, it’s no wonder that multiple such clades had arisen during this time. Such predators included the arctocyonids, a lineage of (ironically) hoof-less ungulates with large jaws and sharp teeth for capturing large prey. There were also the mesonychians, a lineage of dog-like ungulates with massive skulls and jaws that allowed them to reign as the top predator across much of the Eocene.
However, among these various lineages, one stands stands out among the rest, by far. Arising during the Eocene, this lineage, though superficially resembling modern pigs, hailed from one an ancient lineage of artiodactyls far removed from swine or most other ungulates in general, with few close relatives alive today. Through perhaps not the most predatory of the bunch, it was among the most formidable, as their superficially pig-like appearance came with giant predatory jaws and teeth unlike anything from the modern era. And of course, as if all of that wasn’t enough, this lineage also went on to earn arguably one of the most badass nicknames of any lineage of mammals, period. These predators, of course, were the entelodonts, a.k.a the “hell-pigs.” More so than any other predatory ungulate lineage, these formidable ungulates were the ones to turn the current paradigm upside down, becoming some of the largest and most dominant carnivores in their landscape, even with (and often in spite of) the presence of more traditional predators. Through impressive size, fearsome teeth and sheer tenacity, these animals became the top dogs of their time, ruling as behemoth-kings of their Paleogene kingdoms, domineering all comers, and throughout the ranks, one entelodont in particular demonstrated such dominance the best. Though not the largest or most powerful of their kind, it is one of the most iconic, being among the most well-known members of its lineage to date. Moreover, this enteledont also has some of the most complete life histories ever seen out of this clade, with its brutality and predatory prowess being displayed in the fossil record in a way seen in no other member of its kind. More than anything else, however, it was this predator that best turned the notion of “ungulates being prey” on its head, living in an environment that bore some of the largest carnivoran hypercarnivores to date and still reigning as the undisputed top predator of its domain. This fearsome beast was none other than Archaeotherium, icon of the entelodonts, terror of the Oligocene American west and undisputed king of the White River badlands.
The rise of Archaeotherium (and of entelodonts in general) is closely tied to the ascendancy of carnivorous ungulates as a whole, one of the earliest evolutionary success stories of the entire Cenozoic. Having become their own derived clade since the late Cretaceous, the ungulates were remarkably successful during the early Paleogene, as they were among the first mammalian clades to reach large sizes during those early days after the non-avian dinosaurs had gone extinct. As such, it was with incredible swiftness that, as the Paleogene progressed, the ungulates swooped upon the various niches left empty by the K-Pg mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs. This of course included the herbivorous niches we would know them for today, but this also included other, much more carnivore roles. Indeed, early on during the Paleogene, it was the ungulates that first seized the roles of large mammalian predators, becoming some the earliest large mammalian carnivores to ever live, well before even the carnivorans. Such predators included the arctocyonids, a lineage of vaguely dog-like, hoof-less ungulates with robust jaws and sharpened teeth that acted as some of earliest large carnivores of the Paleocene, with genera such as Arctocyon mumak getting up to the size of big cats. Even more prolific were the mesonychids. More so than what pretty much any other lineage of predator, it was the mesonychids that would stand out as the earliest dominant predators of the early Cenozoic. Growing up to the size of bears and with enormous, bone-crushing jaws, the mesonychids were among the most powerful and successful predators on the market at that time, with a near-global range and being capable of subjugating just about any other predator in their environments. Indeed, they, along with other carnivorous ungulates (as well as ungulates in general), were experiencing a golden age during this time, easily being the most prolific predators of the age. Given such prevalence, it should be no surprise that there would be yet another lineage of predatory ungulates would throw their hat into the ring, and by early Eocene, that contender would none other than the entelodonts.
The very first entelodonts had arisen from artiodactyl ancestors during the Eocene epoch, at a time when artiodactyls were far more diverse and bizarre than they are now. Through today known from their modern herbivorous representatives such as bovines, deer, and antelope, during the Paleocene and Eocene, the artiodacyls, as with most ungulates of that time, were stronger and far more predaceous, particularly when it came to one such clade of artiodactyls, the cetacodontamorphs. Only known today from hippos and another group of artiodactyls (one which will become relevant later), the cetacodantomorphs emerged out of Asia around 55 million years ago, at around the same time that artiodactyls themselves had made their debut. These animals included the first truly predatory artiodactyls, with many of them possessing large skulls with powerful jaws and sharp, predatory teeth. Among their ranks included animals as puny as Indohyus, a piscivorous artiodactyl the size of a cat, to as formidable as Andrewsarchus, a giant, bison-sized predator often touted as one of the largest predatory mammals to ever live. Given such a predatory disposition, it wouldn’t be long until this clade produced a lineage of truly diverse, truly successful predators, and by around 40 million years ago, that is exactly what they did, as it was at that time that the entelodonts themselves first emerged. From their Asian homeland, the entelodonts spread across the world, spreading through not only most of Eurasia but also colonizing North America as well, with genera such as Brachyhyops being found across both continents. Here, in this North American frontier, the entelodonts began to diversify further, turning into their most successful and formidable forms yet, and it was around the late Eocene and early Oligocene that Archaeotherium itself had entered the scene.
Just from a passing glance at Archaeotherium, it is clear how exactly it (as well as the other entelodonts) earned the nickname of “hell-pigs.” It was a bruiser for starters; its body bore a robust, pig-like physique, with prominent neural spines and their associated musculature forming a hump around the shoulder region, similar to the hump of a bison. With such a bulky physique came with it impressive size; the average A. mortoni had a head-body length of roughly 1.6-2.0 m (5.3-6.6 ft), a shoulder height of 1.2 m (4 ft) and a body mass of around 180 kg (396 lb) in weight (Boardman & Secord, 2013; Joeckel, 1990). At such sizes, an adult Archaeotherium the size of a large male black bear. However, they had the potential to get even bigger. While most Archaeotherium specimens were around the size described above, a select few specimens, labeled under the synonymous genus “Megachoerus,” are found to be much larger, with skulls getting up to 66% longer than average A. mortoni specimens (Foss, 2001; Joeckel, 1990). At such sizes and using isometric scaling, such massive Archaeotherium specimens would attained body lengths over 2.5 m (8.2 ft) and would have reached weighs well over 500 kg (1100 lb), or as big as a mature male polar bear. Indeed, at such sizes, it is already abundantly evident that Archaeotherium is a force to be recorded with.
However, there was more to these formidable animals than sheer size alone. Behind all that bulk was an astoundingly swift and graceful predator, especially in terms of locomotion. Indeed, the hoofed feet of Archaeotherium, along with other entelodonts, sported several adaptations that gave it incredible locomotive efficiency, essentially turning it into a speed demon of the badlands. Such adaptations include longer distal leg elements (e.g. the radius and tibia) than their proximal counterparts (e.g. the humerus and femur), fusion of the radius and ulna for increased running efficiency, the loss of the clavicle (collar-bone) to allow for greater leg length, the loss of the acromion to enhance leg movement along the fore-and-aft plane, the loss of digits to reduce the mass of the forelimb, the fusion of the ectocuneiform and the mesocuneiform wrist-bones, among many other such traits (Theodore, 1996) . Perhaps most significant of these adaptations is the evolution of the “double-pulley astragalus (ankle-bone),” a specialized modification of the ankle that, while restricting rotation and side-to-side movement at the ankle-joint, allows for greater rotation in the fore-and-aft direction, thus allowing for more more powerful propulsion from the limbs, faster extension and retraction of the limbs and overall greater locomotive efficiency (Foss, 2001). Of course, such a trait was not only found in entelodonts but in artiodactyls as a whole, likely being a response to predatory pressures from incumbent predatory clades arising at the same time as the artiodactyls (Foss, 2001). However, in the case of the entelodonts, such adaptations were not used for merely escaping predators. Rather, they were used to for another, much more lethal effect…
Such notions are further reinforced by the entelodonts most formidable aspect, none either than their fearsome jaws, and in this respect, Archaeotherium excelled. Both for its size and in general, the head of Archaeotherium was massive, measuring 40-50 cm (1.3-1.6 ft) in length among average A. mortoni specimens, to up to 78 cm (~2.6 ft) in the larger “Megachoerus” specimens (Joeckel, 1990). Such massive skulls were supported and supplemented by equally massive neck muscles and ligaments, which attached to massive neural spines on the anterior thoracic vertebrae akin to a bisons hump as well as to the sternum, allowing Archaeotherium to keep its head aloft despite the skulls massive size (Effinger, 1998). Of course, with such a massive skull, it should come as no surprise that such skulls housed exceptionally formidable jaws as well, and indeed, the bite of Archaeotherium was an especially deadly one. Its zygomatic arches (cheek-bones) and its temporal fossa were enlarged and expanded, indicative of massive temporalis muscles that afforded Archaeotherium astoundingly powerful bites (Joeckel, 1990). This is further augmented by Archaeotherium’s massive jugal flanges (bony projections of the cheek), which supported powerful masseter muscles which enhanced chewing and mastication, as well as an enlarged postorbital bar that reinforced the skull against torsional stresses (Foss, 2001). Last but not least, powerful jaws are supplemented by an enlarged gape, facilitated by a low coronoid process and enlarged posterior mandibular tubercles (bony projections originating from the lower jaw), which provided an insertion site for sternum-to-mandible jaw abduction muscles, allowing for a more forceful opening of the jaw (Foss, 2001). All together, such traits suggest a massive and incredibly fearsome bite, perhaps the most formidable of any animal in its environment.
Of course, none of such traits are especially indicative of a predatory lifestyle. Indeed, many modern non-predatory ungulates, like hippos, pigs and peccaries, also possess large, formidable skulls and jaws. However, in peeling back the layers, it is found there was more to the skull of Archaeotherium that lies in store. Indeed, when inspecting the animal closely, a unique mosaic of features is revealed; traits that make it out to be much more lethal than the average artiodactyl. On one hand, Archaeotherium possessed many traits similar to those of herbivores animals, as is expected of ungulates. For instance, its jaw musculature that allowed the lower jaw of Archaeotherium a full side-to-side chewing motion as in herbivores (whereas most carnivores can only move their lower jaw up and down)(Effinger, 1998). On the other hand, Archaeotherium wielded many other traits far more lethal in their morphology, less akin to a herbivore and far more akin to a bonafide predator. For instance, the aforementioned enlarged gape of Archaeotherium is a bizarre trait on a supposed herbivore, as such animals do not need large gapes to eat vegetation and thus have smaller, more restricted gapes. Conversely, many predatory lineages have comparatively large gapes, as larger gapes allow for the the jaws to grab on to more effectively larger objects, namely large prey animals (Joeckel, 1990).
Such a juxtaposition, however, is most evident when discussing the real killing instruments of Archaeotherium — the teeth. More so than any facet of this animal, the teeth of Archaeotherium are the real stars of the show, showing both how alike it was compared to its herbivores counterparts and more importantly, how it couldn’t be more different. For instance, the molars of Archaeotherium were quite similar to modern herbivores ungulates, in that they were robust, bunodont, and were designed for crushing and grinding, similar in form and function to modern ungulates like peccaries (Joeckel, 1990). However, while the molars give the impression that Archaeotherium was a herbivore, the other teeth tell a very different story. The incisors, for example, were enlarged, sharpened, and fully interlocked (as opposed to the flat-topped incisors seen in herbivores ungulates), creating an incisor array that was seemingly ill-suited for cropping vegetation and much more adept at for gripping, puncturing and cutting (Joeckel, 1990). Even more formidable were the canines. Like the modern pigs from which entelodonts derived their nicknames, the canines of Archaeotherium were sharp and enlarged to form prominent tusk-like teeth, but unlike pigs, they were rounded in cross-section (similar to modern carnivores like big cats, indicating more durable canines that can absorb and resist torsional forces, such as those from struggling prey) and were serrated to form a distinct cutting edge (Effinger, 1998; Joeckel, 1990; Ruff & Van Valkenburgh, 1987). These canines, along with the incisors, interlock to stabilize the jaws while biting and dismantling in a carnivore-like fashion. More strikingly, the canines also seem to act as “occlusal guides,” wherein the canines help align the movement and position of the rear teeth as they come together, allowing for a more efficient shearing action by the rear teeth. This function is seen most prevalently modern carnivores mammals, and is evidenced by the canine tooth-wear, which is also analogous to modern predators like bears and canids (Joeckel, 1990). Indeed, going off such teeth alone, it is clear that Archaeotherium is far more predatory than expected of an ungulate. However, the real stars of the show, the teeth that truly betray the predatory nature of these ungulates, are the premolars. Perhaps the most carnivore-like teeth in the entelodont’s entire tooth row, the premolars of Archaeotherium, particularly the anterior premolars, are laterally compressed, somewhat conical in shape, and are weakly serrated to bear a cutting edge, giving them a somewhat carnivorous form and function of shearing and slicing (Effinger, 1998). Most strikingly of all, the premolars of Archaeotherium bear unique features similar not to modern herbivores, but to durophagous carnivores like hyenas, particularly apical wear patterns, highly thickened enamel, “zigzag-shaped” enamel prism layers (Hunter-Schraeger bands) on the premolars which is also seen in osteophagous animals like hyenas, and an interlocking premolar interface wherein linear objects (such as bones) inserted into jaws from the side would be pinned between the premolars and crushed (Foss, 2001). Taken together, these features do not suggest a diet of grass or vegetation like other ungulates. Rather, they suggest a far more violent diet, one including flesh as well as hard, durable foods, particularly bone. All in all, the evidence is clear. Archaeotherium and other entelodonts, unlike the rest of their artiodactyl kin, were not the passive herbivores as we envision ungulates today. Rather, they were willing, unrepentant meat-eaters that had a taste for flesh as well as foliage.
Of course, even with such lines of evidence, its hard to conclude that Archaeotherium was a true predator. After all, its wide gape and durophagous teeth could have just as easily been used for scavenging or even to eat tough plant matter such as seeds or nuts, as in peccaries and pigs, which themselves share many of the same adaptations as Archaeotherium, include the more carnivorous ones (e.g. the wide gape, using the canines as an occlusal guide, etc.). How exactly do we know that these things were veritable predators and not pretenders to the title. To this end, there is yet one last piece of evidence, one that puts on full display the predatory prowess of Archaeotherium —evidence of a kill itself. Found within oligocene-aged sediment in what is now Wyoming, a collection of various fossil remains was found, each belonging to the ancient sheep-sized camel Poebrotherium, with many of the skeletal remains being disarticulated and even missing whole hindlimbs or even entire rear halves of their body. Tellingly, many of the remains bear extensive bite marks and puncture wounds across their surface. Upon close examination, the spacing and size of the punctures leave only one culprit: Archaeotherium. Of course, such an event could still have been scavenging; the entelodonts were consuming the remains of already dead, decomposed camels, explaining the bite marks. What was far more telling, however, was where the bite marks were found. In addition bite marks being found on the torso and lumbar regions of the camels, various puncture wounds were found on the skull and neck, which were otherwise uneaten. Scavengers rarely feast on the head to begin with; there is very little worthwhile meat on it besides the brain, cheek-muscles and eyes, and even if they did feed on the skull and neck, they would still eat it wholesale, not merely bite it and then leave it otherwise untouched. Indeed, it was clear that this was no mere scavenging event. Rather than merely consuming these camels, Archaeotherium was actively preying upon and killing them, dispatching them via a crushing bite to the skull or neck before dismembering and even bisecting the hapless camels with their powerful jaws to preferentially feast on their hindquarters (likely by swallowing the hindquarters whole, as the pelvis of Poebrotherium was coincidentally the perfect width for Archaeotherium to devour whole), eventually discarding the leftovers in meat caches for later consumption (Sundell, 1999). With this finding, such a feat of brutality leaves no doubt in ones mind as to what the true nature of Archaeotherium was. This was no herbivore, nor was it a simple scavenger. This was an active, rapacious predator, the most powerful in its entire ecosystem.
Indeed, with such brutal evidence of predation frozen in time, combined with various dental, cranial, and post cranial adaptations of this formidable animal, it’s possible to paint a picture of how this formidable creature lived. Though an omnivore by trade, willing and able to feast on plant matter such as grass, roots and tubers, Archaeotherium was also a wanton predator that took just about any prey it wanted. Upon detecting its prey, it approached its vicim from ambush before launching itself at blazing speed. From there, its cursorial, hoofed legs, used by other ungulates for escape predation, were here employed to capture prey, carrying it at great speeds as it caught up to its quarry. Having closed the distance with its target, it was then that the entelodont brought its jaws to bear, grabbing hold of the victim with powerful jaws and gripping teeth to bring it to a screeching halt. If the victim is lucky, Archaeotherium will then kill it quickly with a crushing bite to the skull or neck, puncturing the brain or spinal cord and killing its target instantly. If not, the victim is eaten alive, torn apart while it’s still kicking, as modern boars will do today. In any case, incapacitated prey are subsequently dismantled, with the entelodont using its entire head and heavily-muscled necks to bite into and pull apart its victim in devastating “puncture-and pull’ bites (Foss, 2001). Prey would then finally be consumed starting at the hindquarters, with not even the bones of its prey being spared. Such brutality, though far from clean, drove home a singular truth: that during this time, ungulates were not just prey, that they were not the mere “predator-fodder” we know them as today. rather, they themselves were the predators themselves, dominating as superb hunters within their domain and even suppressing clades we know as predators today, least of all the carnivorans. Indeed, during this point in time, the age of the carnivorous ungulates had hit their stride, and more specifically, the age of entelodonts had begun.
Of course, more so than any other ettelodont, Archaeotherium took to this new age with gusto. Archaeotherium lived from 35-28 million years ago during the late Eocene and early Oligocene in a locality known today as the White River Badlands, a fossil locality nestled along the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Though a chalky, barren landscape today, during the time of Archaeotherium, the White River Badlands was a swamp-like floodplain crisscrossed with rivers and interspersed with by a mosaic of forests concentrated around waterways, open woodlands and open plains. As with most ecosystems with such a lush disposition, this locale teemed with life, with ancient hornless rhinos, small horse-like hyracodonts and early camels roaming the open habitats while giant brontotheres, small early horses and strange, sheep-like ungulates called merycoidodonts (also known as “oreodonts”) dwelled within the dense forests. Within this locale, Archaeotherium stalked the open woodlands and riparian forests of its domain. Here, it acted as a dominant predator and scavenger across is territory, filling a niche similar to modern grizzly bears but far more predatory. Among its preferred food items would be plant matter such as roots, foliage and nuts, but also meat in the form of carrion or freshly caught prey. In this respect, smaller ungulates such as the fleet-footed camel Poebrotherium, a known prey item of Archaeotherium, would have made a for choice prey, as its small size would make it easy for Archaeotherium to dispatch with its powerful jaws, while the entelodonts swift legs gave it the speed necessary to keep pace with its agile prey.
However, the entelodont didn’t have such a feast all to itself. Just as the badlands teemed with herbivores, so too did it teem with rival predators. Among their ranks included fearsome predators such as Hyaenodon, a powerful, vaguely dog-like predator up to the size of wolves (as in H. horridus) or even lions (as in the Eocene-aged H. megaloides, which was replaced by H. horridus during the Oligocene). Armed with a massive head, fierce jaws and a set of knife-like teeth that could cut down even large prey in seconds, these were some of the most formidable predators on the landscape. There were also the nimravids, cat-like carnivorans that bore saber-teeth to kill large prey in seconds, and included the likes of the lynx-sized Dinictis, the leopard-sized Hoplophoneus and even the jaguar-sized Eusmilus. Furthermore, there were amphicyonids, better known as the bear-dogs. Though known from much larger forms later on in their existence, during the late Eocene and Oligocene, they were much smaller and acted as the “canid-analogues” of the ecosystem, filling a role similar to wolves or coyotes. Last but not least, there were the bathornithid birds, huge cariamiform birds related to modern seriemas but much larger, which filled a niche similar to modern seriemas or secretary birds, albeit on a much larger scale. Given such competition, it would seem that Archaeotherium would have its hands full. However, things are not as they appear. For starters, habitat differences would mitigate high amounts of competition, as both Hyaenodon and the various nimravids occupy more specialized ecological roles (being a plains-specialist and forest-specialist, respectively) than did Archaeotherium, providing a buffer to stave off competition: More importantly, however, none of the aforementioned predators were simply big enough to take Archaeotherium on. During the roughly 7 million years existence of Archaeotherium, the only carnivore that matched it in size was H. megaloides, and even that would have an only applied to average A. mortoni individuals, not to the much larger, bison-sized “Megachoerus” individuals. The next largest predator at that point would be the jaguars-sized Eusmilus (specifically E. adelos) which would have only been a bit more than half the size of even an average A. mortoni. Besides that, virtually every other predator on the landscape was simply outclassed by the much larger entelodont in terms of size and brute strength. As such, within its domain, Archaeotherium had total, unquestioned authority, dominating the other predators in the landscape and likely stealing their kills as well. In fact, just about the only threat Archaeotherium had was other Archaeotherium, as fossil bite marks suggest that this animal regularly and fraglantly engaged in intraspecific combat, usually through face-biting and possibly even jaw-wrestling (Effinger, 1998; Tanke & Currie, 1998). Nevertheless, it was clear that Archaeotherium was the undisputed king of the badlands; in a landscape of hyaenodonts and carnivorans galore, it was a hoofed ungulate that reigned supreme.
However, such a reign would not last. As the Eocene transitioned into the Eocene, the planet underwent an abrupt cooling and drying phase known as Eocene-Oligocene Transition or more simply the Grande Coupure. This change in climate would eliminate the sprawling wetlands and river systems that Archaeotherium had been depending on, gradually replacing it with drier and more open habitats. To its credit, Archaeotherium did manage to hang on, persisting well after the Grand-Coupure had taken place, but in the end the damage had been done; Archaeotherium was a dead-man-walking. Eventually, by around 28 million years ago, Archaeotherium would go extinct, perishing due to this change in global climate (Gillham, 2019). Entelodonts as a whole would persist into the Miocene, producing some of their largest forms ever known in the form of the bison-sized Daeodon (which was itself even more carnivorous than Archaeotherium), however they too would meet the same fate as their earlier cousins. By around 15-20 million years ago, entelodonts as a whole would go extinct. However, while the entelodonts may have perished, this was not the end of carnivorous ungulates as a whole. Recall that the cetacodontamorphs, the lineage of artiodactyls that produced the entelodonts, left behind two living descendants. The first among them were the hippos, themselves fairly frequent herbivores. The second of such lineage, however, was a different story. Emerging out of South Asia, this lineage of piscivorous cetacodontamorphs, in a an attempt to further specialize for the fish-hunting lifestyle, began to delve further and further into the water, becoming more and more aquatic and the millennia passed by. At a certain point, these carnivorous artiodactlys had become something completely unrecognizable from their original hoofed forms. Their skin became hairless and their bodies became streamlined for life in water. Their hoofed limbs grew into giant flippers for steering in the water and their previously tiny tails became massive and sported giant tail flukes for aquatic propulsion. Their noses even moved to the tip of their head, becoming a blowhole that would be signature to this clade as a whole. Indeed, this clade was none other than the modern whales, themselves derived, carnivorous ungulates that had specialized for a life in the water, and in doing so, became the some of the most dominant aquatic predators across the globe for millions of years. Indeed, though long gone, the legacy of the entelodonts and of predatory ungulates as a whole, a legacy Archaeotherium itself had helped foster, lives on in these paragons of predatory prowess, showing that the ungulates are more than just the mere “prey” that they are often made out to be. Moreover, given the success that carnivorous ungulates had enjoyed in the past and given how modern omnivorous ungulates like boar dabble in predation themselves, perhaps, in the distant future, this planet may see the rise of carnivorous ungulates once again, following in the footsteps left behind by Archaeotherium and the other predatory ungulates all those millions of years ago.

Mostly genuine European and American surplus patterns from the 60’s through the present but a few aftermarket designs I thought were intriguing. Most are field and combat shirts, some are complete with pants and a few pieces of hats/gear. Thankfully everything fits (M/L) as I often use different pieces seasonally. Curious of thoughts and opinions as well as ideas to a few I can’t confirm.
Pic 2: Euro/Asian Pic 3: US Pic 4: Other pants/overalls Pic 5: Caps Pic 6: Commercial Pic 7: Unsure of country/pattern

Outfit Breakdown
Top: Vintage Woolrich Buffaol Plaid Mackinaw Jacket, Black Champion Hoodie
Bottoms: Levis 514 Light Wash
Shoes: Laredo Hawk Snip Toe Boots
Head: Amazon Ski Mask, Bass Pro Shops Hat, Foster Grant's Men's Aviator Sport Sunglasses Silver (Walmart)
Gloves: upside down work gloves( the red tops were extremely bright)
Car: 2011 Buick Lucerne CXL
Photo Credit: @rippervision

This is a sticking from Gary Chaffee’s “Sticking Patterns” book. It consists of two of the 6 note stickings played together as a phrase.
RLRLKK + RLrrll + RLRLKK + RLrrll
This creates a very smooth phrase that can be voiced in a million ways, I prefer this one in a swing feel (keeping the hats on 2+4 present a challenge to these phrases).
But you can straighten it out for rock, speed it up a bit for metal. Very useful phrase, great book!

I've compiled a list of parallels that fans have drawn between Elden Ring and Dark Souls 2, along with brief commentaries and illustrations on the patterns they may have observed.
https://preview.redd.it/rf3iddqmh90d1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=6dcbeb73ef5011e8ac1d0906c3efc5daad3f8382
"The game is called the Elden Ring and it's a sequel to a video game that came out a few years ago called Dark Souls, My work on it was actually done years ago. These games, they're like movies, they take a long time to develop." - George R.R. Martin
He [George Martin] actually knew about the Dark Souls games. He was aware of them and what they were about, so that made me happy. That sort of gave me a little bit of a boost. I knew immediately from talking to him, it just became apparent his skill and his passion for the fantasy genre, and for games as well. - Hidetaka Miyazaki
“I can't deny the fact that, maybe down the line, I want to go back to the [Dark Souls] series and make one more game before I retire. I don't want to be branded a liar if that happens.” - Hidetaka Miyazaki
Dark Souls 2 probably bears the Souls series’ closest resemblance to Elden Ring. Design wise, both Dark Souls 2 and Elden Ring stressed open-ended gameplay and ditched linear progression.
Miyazaki agrees and in fact goes a step further. “In regards to Dark Souls 2, I actually personally think this was a really great project for us, and I think without it, we wouldn’t have had a lot of the connections and a lot of the ideas that went forward and carried the rest of the series. We were able to have that different impetus and have those different ideas and make those different connections that we otherwise might not have had.” He goes so far as to say that “there’s really no way of telling how or if the series would have continued the way it did without Dark Souls 2.” Hidetaka Miyazaki
https://preview.redd.it/c1l0ai2qh90d1.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d04121342a939c455bdc3981526a1ef66e88ea48
Elden Ring was co-directed by Yui Tanimura who is the director of Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin.
"There are countless vestiges of long-lost gods in the ruins of Drangleic. Or perhaps they are the very same gods as ours, only known by different names."
I’ve seen people make comparison with the deities mentioned on the Name-engraved Ring list. (although the one they made about Ranni didn’t make sense to me and seem to be more relevant to the Gloam-Eyed Queen if anything).
https://preview.redd.it/kk5x27yth90d1.png?width=1640&format=png&auto=webp&s=821ee94090b83e3b5f63470ac3fcb1ef30ad771d
St. Trina and Miquella from Elden Ring share striking similarities with Quella, the deity of dreams dreams from Dark Souls 2, and Nehma, the goddess of love. Like the latter, Miquella has the power to "compel affection" through the Bewitching Branch. St. Trina and Quella are associated with sleep, trees, and dreams. Miquella shares similarities with Quella, as both are associated with ethereal, dream-like entities like the Nascent Butterfly and White Ring,
Quella’s icon also depicts a boy with wings, which something similar we see Miquella have during Elden Ring’s intro cut scene.
https://preview.redd.it/a1uyuv0xh90d1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=c0fa27e5087b6c1ae5f4052fa94608e6a588b8c5
Hanleth is the goddess of bliss. After the war of the erdtree, Marika's reign ushered in an age of plenty when It is said that drops of blessing once dripped boughs forever which gradually restored HP.
In Marika's own words. Hark, brave warriors. Hark, my lord Godfrey. We commend your deeds. Guidance has delivered ye through ordeal to the place ye stand. Put the giants to the sword and confine the flame atop the mount. Let a new epoch begin. An epoch glistening with life. Brandish the Elden Ring, for the Age of the Erdtree! - Melina
Kremmel, god of Struggle.
Lord Radagon was a great champion... He came to these lands at the head of a great golden host, when he met Lady Rennala in battle. He soon repented his territorial aggressions though, and became husband to the Carian Queen. However, when Godfrey, first Elden Lord, was hounded from the Lands Between, Radagon left Rennala to return to the Erdtree Capital. - Miriel, Pastor of Vows
“Solemn duty weighs upon the one beholden; not unlike a gnawing curse from which there is no deliverance” descriptions from both Marika's & Radagon's Soreseals
Queen Marika has high hopes for us. That we continue to struggle. Unto eternity. - Gideon Ofnir
https://preview.redd.it/0tur3izzh90d1.png?width=2528&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e63f98f0a1350762a4de8997dba2dc69e98b16c
Radagon’s thorns
Prevented by the mantle of barbs. The thorns are impenetrable. A husk of the Erdtree's being; that spurns all that exists without. The only way to stand before the Elden Ring...and become the Elden Lord...is to pass the thorns. My purpose serves to aid in that very act. So I'd like you to undertake a new journey, with me. To the flame of ruin, far above the clouds, upon the snow mountaintops of the giants. Then I can set the Erdtree aflame. And guide you. Down the path to becoming Elden Lord. - Melina
“Ring granted protection by Kremmel, god of Struggle. The ring's spikes drive into the wearer's skin, so that each blow fuels spite toward the perpetrator. When damage is taken the ring retaliates and inflicts damage upon enemy.” - Ring of Thorns
https://preview.redd.it/s9vqoo92i90d1.png?width=1700&format=png&auto=webp&s=851342900eedd3d6923e96467b74991ee7dc4bee
Assuming the theories that Mesmer are true, his association with the snake (which is viewed as a traitor to the Erdtree), consumption of dragon hearts, and seeking ultimate power suggest the pursuit for supremacy for his own gain. This aligns with the Covetous Gold Serpent Ring), which depicts the snake, a manifestation of the god of desire, Zinder. The serpent is an imperfect dragon and symbol of the undead. Mesmer's ambition and willingness to embrace forbidden power mirrors the ring's representation of insatiable desire and the undying nature of the serpent.
Rykard from Elden Ring and Zandroe from Dark Souls share a striking similarity - they are both associated with serpents and the concept of greed. Zandroe is described as the "god of greed" whose manifestation and servant is the snake, while Rykard fed himself into a massive "god-devouring serpent" in his pursuit of immortality through devouring others, an act of ultimate greed.
https://preview.redd.it/2xwppab5i90d1.png?width=2250&format=png&auto=webp&s=759285b5d91b9f67f2a4e21b7af7d63992b9b701
Nahr Alma, the god of blood and a god of war, where Mohg is a demigod and the lord of blood.
Both Mohg and Nahr Alma are divinely associated with blood and have followers who use blood-themed weapons like the Scythe of Nahr Alma. Mohg and Nahr Alma's followers have rejected the world and vow to travel a bloody path. Mohg is the Lord of Blood and seeks to inaugurate a new dynasty, similar to Nahr Alma's influence
https://preview.redd.it/9c9qs347i90d1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=751dd7bc64dab8497a03de36ec265dd9019f58c6
Morgott, the "Fell Omen" 忌み鬼 (Imi Oni) meaning "Abominable Demon#cite_ref-14)." , and highly-ranked clerics of Lindelt from Dark Souls 2 share similarities as holy knights who wield "demonic powers" to castigate those who harbor ambitions for power. Both are feared by their enemies for their ruthless tactics in battle, with Morgott slaughtering countless champions during the Shattering and these clerics of Lindelt use the miracle "Unveil" to reveal the location of traitors.
“Wilful traitors, all. Thy kind are all of a piece. Pillagers. Emboldened by the flame of ambition. Have it writ upon thy meagre grave: Felled by King Morgott! Last of all kings.” Morgott, the Grace-Given.
https://preview.redd.it/k5dmrtw9i90d1.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=813daad7b1759a5976733b2b0b0cb828edb029da
Godwyn the Golden from Elden Ring and the God of Sun from Dark Souls 2 were revered for their mastery of lightning and their incantations, such as Lightning Spear*,* Dragonbolt Blessing*, and Sacred Oath. Additionally, Godwyn's victory of the ancient dragon Fortissax and his subsequent friendship with the fallen foe gave rise to the* ancient dragon cult in the capital, much like the God of Sun's connection with the Blinding Bolt that was forbidden so to protect the world from hatred, or sorrow, and the ancient clan) whose leader was revered as the deity.
​
https://preview.redd.it/48erum2ci90d1.png?width=1148&format=png&auto=webp&s=55ffc3756e529ae9c2fd97140d24b617bd320249
The demigod general Radahn and Faraam like Nahr Alma, is a god of war from Dark Souls 2 are both associated with lions, a symbol of strength and ferocity in battle, representing their prowess as mighty warriors. Known for their skill in combat, with Radahn being captivated by the Lord of the Battlefield from a young age, now wields a greatsword in each hand, and the Faraam Knights being feared for their nimble two-handed swordplay.
https://preview.redd.it/whovyokei90d1.png?width=1720&format=png&auto=webp&s=fa1f0618adf2f96b5f9b6ff25851b698e978443d
Galib (I’ve seen it spelled “Calib”) from Dark Souls 2 and Malenia (who released her bloom in Caelid) both have a thematic connection to disease and affliction. Malenia and Miquella, both children of a single god, were afflicted with rot and eternal childhood respectively. Leydia apostles manipulated both the onset and curing of disease but were denied peaceful deaths, while Malenia's rot was an incurable sickness (as her army are undergoing their gradual, putrefaction of their flesh) that Miquella tried to ward off with unalloyed gold needles and her great rune provides healing after receiving damage*.*
Coincidentally Malenia can grow wings as well.
​
https://preview.redd.it/2cp6naygi90d1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=e0022e8bce8c8fe3336207d3fa4c342b967a93ac
Caffrey, deity of Fortune, and Godfrey the first Elden lord. The name “Frey” might be derived from Nordic mythology. Frey is primarily associated with fertility, prosperity, and abundance.
Caffrey's icon mirrors the currency and EXP icon from Dark Souls 2, representing experience points gained by defeating enemies. In a similar vein, Godfrey is portrayed as the lord of the battlefield, who bravely battled Giants, confronted the Storm Lord and had countless victories, ushering in the Age of the Erdtree which was forged through the use of valuables like Smithing Stones [8], becoming the embodiment of Order. This left a long legacy of loyal warriors honored him by wielding axes like himself.
https://preview.redd.it/xqqe3i9ji90d1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c9c649c3a142d86f2d1b18a5637ceff33b8768b
The hunting Goddess Evlana was no goddess at all, but rather a brave and highly skilled bow huntress. Long after her demise, the passing of lore transformed her into a deity.”
The Hunter's Hat
Spirit of a handsome archer who dressed in the style of a man. Called the Silent Hunter by some, she fires St. Trina's arrows from her shortbow.
Dolores the Sleeping Arrow Puppet
:P

Guten Abend liebe Affengemeinde!
Unsere Aktie schießt empor und - noch wichtiger - DFV/Roaring Kitty ist zurückgekehrt!
https://preview.redd.it/v977rz4eh90d1.jpg?width=517&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57065c88b9575cf6eccc534cd875b5b82884de91
Yahoo
Finviz
Coin360
​
Das RRP-Update zeigt für heute einen Wert von 492,1 Mrd. USD mit 77 Gegenparteien.
​

• Top Beitrag: Roaring Kittys großes Comeback via Twitter.
  • Weiter ging es dann heute mit zahlreichen zusammengeschnittenen Filmszenen, die alle 30 Minuten von ihm gepostet wurden. Die zentrale Botschaft erscheint klar: "Ich bin zurück und bringe die Sache jetzt zu Ende". Im Folgenden habe ich, soweit es mir möglich war, die Reddit Beiträge zu jedem seiner Videos verlinkt.
    • 1. DFV hat sich vermutlich an diesem GameStop Tweet vom Februar orientiert.
    • 2 (nochmal).
    • 3 (nochmal) - Interpretation.
    • 4.
    • 5.
    • 6.
    • 7.
    • 8.
    • 9.
    • 10 (Twitter-Link).
    • 11 (Twitter-Link).
    • 12 (Twitter-Link).
  • Aufmerksamkeit: CNBC thematisiert DFVs Rückkehr.
  • Alte Bekannte: PleasrDAO zitiert DFVs ersten Tweet.

​
Es folgen die Beiträge, die nicht in direktem Zusammenhang mit DFV stehen.

• Verluste: Bereits eine Stunde nach Börsenöffnung haben Short Seller, laut The Kobeissi Letter, 1 Mrd. USD verloren.
• Auszeit: Über den Tag kam es zu zahlreichen Trading Halts bei GME.
• Meinung: Die heutigen Kursbewegungen seien nicht auf KleininvestorInnen oder DFV zurückzuführen.
  • Für die Experten der deutschen Presse ist derweil klar: DFV hat wieder einmal "Spekulationen" mit GME ausgelöst.
• Mögliches Share Buyback: Peruvian Bull spekuliert anhand von Daten aus dem Bloomberg Terminal, dass GameStop nun tatsächlich einen Rückkauf der eigenen Aktien begonnen hat. Anlass hierzu ist die Aktivierung der SEC Regel 10B-18.
  • Hier und hier nochmal.
• Aufruf: Erinnert euch, wie wir die letzten 3 Jahre lang betrogen und manipuliert wurden.
• Wiederholungstäter: Robinhood hat mutmaßlich ERNEUT den Kaufknopf deaktiviert.
  • Hier und hier berichten andere Affen davon.
    • Hier und hier berichten Affen, dass auch Trade Republic erneut den Handel gesperrt habe.
• Hype: Der Moment, auf den wir so lange gewartet haben, sei endlich gekommen.
• Projektabschluss: u/BadassTrader (Beobachter des Dorito of Doom) verkündet, dass seine Arbeit mit dem Ausbruch aus dem Pattern nun zu einem Ende gekommen sei.

​

• Memes, Meme- und Hypevideos:
  • Selbstbewusstsein.
  • Veteranentag.
  • Falscher Preis.
  • DFV Returns.
  • "Welcome Back Everyone".

​
Das war sicherlich nicht alles Wichtige von heute, aber ich hoffe, euch einen groben Überblick verschafft zu haben. Weitere erwähnenswerte Beiträge werde ich diesmal (in der Regel) nicht ergänzen, da ich sonst wohl die ganze Nacht beschäftigt wäre.
Schlaft gut meine Affen, bis zum nächsten Mal!
u/sausess

Fair warning, this is gonna be a long one :)
I started working on this for my own purposes because I’m fascinated by the similarities and differences between the HTT styling approaches Kibbe recommends for the different ID families, but then thought it might be helpful to share with the sub. I always see lots of mention of “lines,” but the overall HTT approach for each ID is sometimes (often) oversimplified. Plus all the other very fun elements that make up a HTT are, imo, getting short shrift! There are a few users who have posted amazing full HTTs for their IDs and I'm hoping even more people will be inspired to explore.
So what even is this post?
Basically, I went through the styling directives in Metamorphosis (Chapter 4) for the main families and directly compared the recommendations for the IDs on a number of smaller, more discrete variables because my brain finds it more digestible that way. I only did the main families because “you’re a [insert family here] first and foremost!!” is a thing regardless of your ID ;) And I thought it was more interesting to compare the elements of the pure families without the influence of any other undercurrents. Also it just would have been a lot of work to do all of them 🙃.
A few notes before getting to the good stuff

• I tried to mostly focus on the words Kibbe uses to evoke feelings rather than specific items, since the book was written in the 80s and clothing is obviously quite different.
• Some of the things that fall in the middle of a scale have debateable positioning since the middles are sometimes hard to compare (ex. Is a moderate pinstripe more angular or less angular than a soft-edged plaid? My vote was more angular but your vote could be the opposite!) I included all of the language I used to determine placement on the scales so you can make your own call if you want.
• I disincluded some, ahem, charged descriptors in a few IDs but I don’t think it changes the overall picture painted of what that ID would be looking to channel in their HTTs

This post includes all of the scales I compared the families on in 6 main categories - silhouette, fabric, detail, prints, color, and accessories - plus some keywords that came up for each family that give the overall impression of the HTT. I might make a second part later with key similarities and differences between the approaches for each pair of families, but we'll see! I'm also interested in any discussion here or observations that others might have on the various categories :)
And of course you can always read Metamorphosis for yourself in full here, which I highly recommend!

1. Silhouette

This section is related to the base silhouette of an outfit - the overall shape of garments that make up a HTT and how they relate to one another. For the purposes of this category, I'm defining "ensemble" as the pieces look related or like they were purchased together, which I believe is the sense Kibbe uses it in.
https://preview.redd.it/8earo8fbm70d1.jpg?width=1965&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=40f17625fbfc45cc723b9cc83d447111428d8b02
Shapes

• D - “keep shapes sharp and geometric. Triangles, rectangles, and everything sculpted, sleek, and elongated, with crisp edges.” “square, sharp shoulders”
• R - “keep your shapes rounded with soft edges! Circles, ornate swirls, and intricate flowing shapes” “shoulders should be curved”
• C - “slightly geometric or slightly curved, blend the same shapes together in your look” “slight, crisp shoulder padding”
• N - “geometric shapes with soft or rounded edges are the key. Rounded-edged rectangles. Soft oblongs, rounded-edged squares, irregular shapes, and soft asymmetrics.” “soft-edged shoulder pads are very good”
• G - “small, sharp geometrics” “sharp edges and crisp tailoring” “crisp” “sharp edges and extreme tailoring and construction” “sharp shoulder pads”

Outline quality

• D - “Always straight, with elongated draping that is sleek”
• R - “your outline should always be soft and flowing” “lots of gentle draping everywhere” “soft fluidity”
• C - “smooth and symmetrical with the emphasis on controlled and even edges, soft, straight lines, or smoothly curved lines - softly tailored or slightly flowing.”
• N - “a relaxed, straight line is the outline of your look”
• G - “sharp, straight, and staccato” “severe lines with sharp edges” “broken, staccato, animated outline. Utilizing many short vertical lines and many short horizontal lines is also effective.”

Closeness of fit

• D - “always tailored and sculpted” “streamlined shape” “tailored and sleek” “the more tailored the better”
• R - “showcase the lush curves of your body” “Sleeves should be tapered at the wrist” “waistline should always be emphasized, with soft gathers, folds, draped sashes, and lightweight and supple belts to give a cinched effect” “[Jackets] should be fitted at the waist”
• C - “very slight draping in constructed garments” “crisp and finished cuffs” “tailored pleats” “narrow and tailored [jackets] with a smooth outline.” “lightweight unconstructed jackets are fine when they are kept sleek and narrow. Blazers, cardigan-style, elongated Chanel (not cropped) are all good choices” “softly tailored”
• N - “softly tailored, always unconstructed” “Your outline should be fairly narrow and slim, in a loose and easy way.” “Dropped waist detail (loose sashes, overbloused tops, ties, etc) is excellent, as are slightly dropped shoulders.” “Relaxed shapes” “relaxed and easy fit” “dresses should be simple and unconstructed, with a narrow shape and a relaxed outline.”
• G - “Precision fitted and crisply tailored” “[a] precisely fitted silhouette is crucial to your look” “Sharp and narrow waist definition.” “very fitted” “[skirts] should be very fitted at the waistband” “Pants should always be very sharply tailored with outlined or animated detail at the edges (waistbands, pleats, crisp cuffs).” “Skin tight stretchy pants are excellent” “Very tailored [blouses] with sharp edges and crisp detail (collars, cuffs, pleats, etc.)”

Length of garments

• D - “Long, vertical lines are essential.” “generally [jackets] should be long (ending at the mid-thigh area), although a very sleek, Italian-style might be cropped (be sure this has an extremely sculpted, streamlined shape)” “straight and long [skirts]” “a long hem” “long cardigans or pullovers”
• R - "lengths should be kept gracefully long as uneven hemlines (mid-calf), and short as the tapered styles with an even hemline (mid kneecap)" "[for sweaters] short lengths with waist detail"
• C - “standard length is best [for jackets] (just below break of hip)” “slightly longer jackets are possible when the corresponding skirt is elongated to match.” “moderate length [skirts]”
• N - “Elongated [jackets] (ending from the upper thigh on down.)” “Moderate length [skirts]” “Very short skirts for fun/funky looks.” “Nearly all styles [of pants] are excellent, from very casual to very dressy… short, cropped, or long.” “Any and all lengths [for sweaters]”
• G - “Short, cropped [jackets]” “Straight, sharp, and short [skirts]” “A slightly flared hemline [on skirts] may be slightly longer (top of the calf). Anything extremely long is very tricky, and must have a slit and be pencil slim.” “[For pants] Short lengths, anywhere from cropped at the calf to the top of the ankle.” “Short, cropped cardigans” “Short cropped jackets, vests, and boleros work well with dresses for you”

Cohesion

• D - “keep individual pieces blended together in an artful way for elegance”
• R - “include an artful blending of plush textures, draped fabrics, and luxurious colors” “avoid any kind of harsh contrast between top and bottom”
• C - “A clean, unbroken silhouette is your most elegant statement! Think ‘head-to-toe’, and blend everything accordingly.” “Use [separates] carefully and sparingly” “Make sure colors, textures, and prints blend together”
• N - “Separates are extremely exciting on you, and should make up the bulk of your wardrobe” “you’ll do better with an artful mixture of patterns, textures and colors than you will with an overly matched look” “designer sportswear” “definitely mix n’ match in the most sophisticated sense of the word”
• G - “A use of well-coordinated separates with lots of animated and colorful detail can be very exciting to your look.”

Some random observations from me about this category

• N fam has a truly impressive amount of versatility in terms of the length of pieces they're recommended, probably because they're the only family that's really strongly encouraged to go whole hog with a mix and match/separates-forward approach (a superpower tbh).
• Although the scale of pieces recommended are obviously quite different, the words he uses to describe the shapes for D and G fams are extremely similar. Definitely two families that benefit from an emphasis on crisp sharpness and angularity.
• I thought it was interesting that he used "softly tailored" in both the C and N fam sections, although the effect they're going for is very different (blended understated elegance vs. relaxed funky easy vibes).
• He never uses the word "wide" in the N fam section. He does, however, use "narrow" and "loosely tailored" a number of times 😈 No oversized shapeless potato sacks here!

2. Fabric

This category is pretty self-explanatory I hope!
https://preview.redd.it/94e76p19190d1.jpg?width=1976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=816214030ae525dd16ec2e071426eab1e571c544
Definition

• D - “fabrics that hold a defined shape are necessary”
• R - “fabrics that drape easily” “flowing”
• C - “beautiful, luscious fabrics are an important element in your understated look” “very slight draping in constructed garments.”
• N - “loose and easy”
• G - “must always be crisp, able to hold a defined shape, and be tailored easily”

Range of textures (how many different fabrics can they use)

• D - “Moderate to heavyweights are best, with a matte finish and a smooth surface” “textures should be tightly woven, and shiny fabrics should be very stiff and ultraglitzy”
• R - “softly woven fabrics” “ultrashiny fabrics” “ultrasoft or plush textures” “sheer fabrics” “any kind of sparkle is excellent”
• C - “Matte finish or slight sheen.” “Luxurious to the touch” “lightweight textures” “smooth knits” “smooth chiffon and elegantly beaded fabrics for evening.”
• N - “All soft textures are excellent” “any fabric with a rough or nubby surface” “any wrinkly fabric works well” “all woven fabrics” “knits are excellent in nearly any weight and thickness, from very finely woven to very heavy and rough” “Plush velours, suede, and soft leather are perfect” “drapable fabrics are best kept to heavier weight jerseys.” “A matte finish is far superior to sheen for daytime” “In the evening, you can go very glitzy with hard-finished sheens”
• G - “a flat surface or light texture is best” “finely woven knits, especially when ribbed and skinny, are good choices.” “matte finish is best, although hard-finished sheens can be very exciting (especially metallics)”

Weight

• D - “Moderate to heavyweights are best” “occasionally lightweight fabrics can work if they are extra-structured in the design of the garment”
• R - “lightweight fabrics”
• C - “moderate weights. Lightweights in very constructed or tailored garments.”
• N - "knits are excellent in nearly any weight and thickness, from very finely woven to very heavy and rough." “moderate weights are best, although textures can easily be lighter”
• G - “usually your fabric will be of moderate weight, though lighter weights that hug the body are excellent”

Some random observations from me about this category

• Again lots of similarities for G and D fam as far as structure and matte finish, although D also has heavier structured wovens while G has fine knits.
• R fam and N fam get by far the most diverse recommendations as far as fabric and textures go (again a ton of versatility in N fam!). Seems like you really can't go wrong with something sparkly, shiny, glitzy, or plushy if you're in R fam. And for N fam it sounds like you get to mix far more textures into one HTT than everybody else does, which is exciting!
• I thought the emphasis on flowing for R fam was interesting. It makes total sense - I haven't read too deeply into R since I am clearly not one lol - but for some reason I had flowing associated with N in my mind.
• I really love the C recommendations myself - "luscious fabrics" just makes me think about burrowing in a cashmere blanket haha. I could definitely picture Grace Kelly as I was reading them.

3. Prints

Also self-explanatory!
https://preview.redd.it/nn24my93490d1.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a8d47c3a4d4d5984b6cac8d9deeccdf7da834c4
Pattern

• D - “bold and geometric: stripes, zigzags, asymmetrics, and irregular shapes.” “Think Picasso and strive for a contemporary feeling”
• R - “rich and luscious with the emphasis on an abstract, watercolor blend (think Monet). Swirls of color, flowing together, with soft and rounded edges may be used in abundance.”
• C - “symmetrical, evenly spaced, and regular or realistic patterns. Understated prints (pin dots, pinstripes, checks, blended plaids, herringbone, symmetrical paisleys, etc.)”
• N - “casual styles that are soft-edged geometrics (plaids, stripes, paisleys, etc.) and funky prints in irregular shapes (abstract asymmetrics, leaves, animal prints, etc.).”
• G - “Prints should be sharp, colorful, and animated. Small geometrics and angular asymmetrics are excellent. Most of your prints should be very contemporary in feeling (“Picasso-ish”) although humorous styles that are outlined and caricatured can be quite stunning on you as well.”

Contrast

• D - “Bold color combinations and high-contrast blends work best”
• R - “swirls of color, flowing together”
• C - “Make sure colors, textures, and prints blend together” “understated”
• N - “generally have a softly blended edge”
• G - “colorful and animated” “outlined” “contrast”

Scale

• D - “bold”
• R - “luxuriously large: oversized florals or feathery shapes are especially lovely”
• C - “understated”
• N - “moderate scale to slightly large”
• G - “small”

Some random observations from me about this category

• Again lots of similarities for D and G for the type (sharp geometric) and feeling of prints (contemporary/Picasso) with the main difference being large vs. small scale (don't worry, they're about to diverge hardcore 😂)
• R fam is recommended significantly more abstract and organic prints than everyone else. I also thought it was interesting that both D and R call for larger-scale prints - finally something in common!
• For C fam it seems like the most important thing is that the prints blend in and are understated rather than drawing attention to themselves.
• Preferring high contrast and sharp prints vs slightly more blended and soft ones seems like a notable difference between D/G and N fam.

4. Garment Detail

This category is related to the details within the confines of the outline of a garment. So things like necklines, collars, effects like beading and sequins, trim, buttons, etc etc.
https://preview.redd.it/342pwi6y390d1.jpg?width=1971&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64115f1045c7a3cb6d9ac1d6d843754ca943a603
Shape - sharp vs soft

• D - “angular shapes” “sharp edges” “clean, angular necklines (plunging v’s, skinny turtlenecks, high Mandarins, slashed collars, halters…)” “anything tailored (crisp cuffs, sharp pleats, sharp lapels, etc.)”
• R - “soft” “[Sleeves can be] very soft and flowing” “lapels should be curved, rounded, or shawl-collared” “gathers, tucks, or bouffant shapes” “any draped, gathered, or shirred touches are wonderful accents”
• C - “clean, tailored necklines” “crisp and finished cuffs”
• N - “Any unconstructed or loosely tailored detail works well.” “Simple necklines… are best, and you should concentrate on open necklines for your air of casual chic” “lapels should be tailored, notched, or clean (lapel-less).” “Cuffs should be very plain.”
• G - “Detail should always be… sharp” “very crisp, staccato, broken up, and multicolored” “lots of crisp trim” “lots of outlining (collars, cuffs, waistbands, lapels) with piping of contrasting colors or fabric, braiding, beads, etc.” “Small, crisp pleats.” “Sharp, angular necklines - also small” “Small, crisp ties (ribbon, leather, etc.)” “Small, tailored lapels or crisp lapel-less with piping.” “Small, crisp cuffs.”

Scale - large vs small

• D - “bold, sweeping geometrics”
• R - “oversize bows, flouncy ruffles, and delicate lace are always good choices”
• C - “[detail] should never call attention to itself”
• N - “pleats should be soft and deep” “You can use small touches of hand embroidery or rough lace and eyelet for very simple trim.”
• G - “Detail should always be small” “Small, crisp pleats.” “Sharp, angular necklines - also small” “Small, crisp ties (ribbon, leather, etc.)” “Small, tailored lapels or crisp lapel-less with piping.” “Small, crisp cuffs”

Complexity - clean vs intricate

• D - “detail should always be clean and minimal”
• R - “intricate, ornate… with an emphasis on framing your face” “Sleeves should be tapered at the wrist with intricate buttons” “any kind of sparkle is excellent (pearls, sequins, beading, etc.)” “belt buckles should always be intricate” “the more intricate or antique looking your buttons are the better” “ornate detail” “ornate necklines”
• C - “clean, simple, and minimal - just enough to add an elegantly understated touch.” “never call attention to itself” “clean lines” “minimal detail” “minimum of detail”
• N - “detail should be kept minimal. Plain and simple is best for you.” “gathers should be minimal” “simple tailored styles with minimal detail” “Simple shapes with easy fits” “Minimal detail”
• G - “an overabundance of detail” “You can never wear too much detail! An abundance of it and everywhere in your look is one of the most effective tools you have for capturing your animated effervescence!” “Detail should always… call attention to itself (not blend into the lines of your garments)” “lots of animated and colorful detail” “Collar, cuff, lapel, and waistband detail (outlining, trim, piping, ribbing) are essential”

Some random observations from me about this category

• A very stark divide here between the families that lean minimal/clean (C, N, D) and the families that lean complex (R, G)!
• Even though R and G both call for a lot of detail, G fam seems to like it literally everywhere (but especially at the edges) while R focuses on framing the face. Another difference between them is that G detail is high contrast, sharp, and colorful while R fam's detail tends to the ornate, flowing, intricate, and sparkly - very different shapes I think.
• Finally a category where N fam is not running away with the versatility haha - it seems like a more minimal and clean approach to detail really helps them shine.

5. Color

Y'all know what colors are :)
https://preview.redd.it/5he7hmfk790d1.jpg?width=1949&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc59971dc9518bfbd276300feccba5838f4d7971
Number

• D - “Always think ‘head-to-toe’ with your color schemes” “All monochromatic schemes are excellent”
• R - “include an artful blending of… luxurious colors”
• C - “Make sure colors, textures, and prints blend together” “monochromatic schemes are excellent, although you do not need to be limited to just one or two colors.”
• N - “Color is an area in which you should have lots of fun! Strive for zip, verve, and lots of pizzazz with bolds, brights, pastels, vivids, and wild color combinations - anything imaginative.” “Break all the rules when it comes to color! Mix ‘n match with ease.”
• G - “lots of animated and colorful detail can be very exciting to your look” “Your use of color should be bold and sassy; break all the rules here! Multicolored splashes are perfect. Bright and shockingly colored accessories played against a dark or light background. High, sharp contrast and wild color combinations are all very chic on you. Break your line with color!”

Effect

• D - “color combination should be bold but elegant. Combining bright shades with dark shades achieves this with ease.”
• R - “should emphasize a watercolor palette of soft pastels and luscious brights.” “rich, luxuriously blended colors” “pale neutrals… are your best accents”
• C - “accentuate your smoothly blended visual outline. This means that a mixture of colors in an outfit should blend together in intensity so as not to disrupt your clean and smooth silhouette.” “The key is to make sure the tones (intensities) blend, instead of contrasting.”
• N - “Strive for zip, verve, and lots of pizzazz with bolds, brights, pastels, vivids, and wild color combinations - anything imaginative. Neutrals work well when they are used in beautifully textured fabrics… but you will feel a little dull without a few bright accents, either in accessories or jewelry.” “Colors can be very wild and unusual if you wish, or more muted and earthy-looking”
• G - “bold and sassy” “Multicolored splashes” “Bright and shockingly colored accessories played against a dark or light background.” “High, sharp contrast and wild color combinations”

Some random observations from me about this category

• It's been said before but D fam's inability to do anything but monochrome has been greatly exaggerated. Outfits can have high contrast colors as long as they still read bold and sleek!
• I found it interesting that both C fam and R fam call for a blended effect.
• Color seems like a key category to focus on for both N fam and G fam - bold color kings/queens 👑

6. Accessories

The category for everything else - bags, hats, shoes, jewelry, belts, etc etc.
https://preview.redd.it/ek7fu7oz790d1.jpg?width=1923&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c24f3db63656cef4a8da916665ba0f19893cc86
Scale

• D - “Belts should be bold and wide” “Metal belts will be sculpted and quite large.” “[Hats should have] wide brims” “[Jewelry should have] an emphasis on bold, modern shapes.” “[For jewelry,] Pieces should be large but not overly bulky.”
• R - “The effect may be lavish, but the workmanship should be intricate and delicate.” “delicate [shoes]” “[For bags,] Delicate shoulder straps. Elegantly slim briefcases.” “Jewelry should always be delicate and lavish, with intricate and ornate touches. Rounded shapes, curves, swirls, and lots of dangles”
• C - “slender pumps” “narrow heels” “moderate size [bags]” “slim and elegant” “keep [belts] elegant, slim, and narrow with small smooth buckles” “small and crisp [hats] with even brims” “Small [jewelry]”
• N - “moderate-sized [bags]” “Jewelry should be kept on the chunky side” “It is possible to get away with very minimal chains, tiny diamond studs, etc., but chances are you won’t be satisfied with this once you experiment with a zippier look!”
• G - “All accessories should be small, crisp, geometric, and colorful” “Small, crisp geometrics [for bags]” “[Belts] may be narrow to moderately wide.” “Small, crisply tailored hats.” “Jewelry should be small and sharp.”

Shape

• D - “All accessories should be crisp, sharply tailored, and angular with geometric shapes. Keep everything sleek and contemporary in feeling.” “High, straight heels, crisp soles, and elegantly tapering toes.” “Angular envelopes, clutches, or structured briefcases.” “[For jewelry,] thin sharp pieces are good choices, as are avant-garde works of art.”
• R - “softly sophisticated.” “[Shoes of] Lightweight and supple leather.” “[For bags,] small, rounded shapes. Soft, supple leather or fabric.” [For belts,] soft and supple leather or fabric.” “Soft, curvy [hats]” “Large, fluffy fur hats.”
• C - “elegant scarves in symmetrical ties” “tapered toes” “elegant leather” “softly tailored flats” “crisply tailored [bags]” “supple leather [bags]” “tailored, symmetrical shape[d hats]” “Keep your jewelry elegant, smooth, and symmetrical” “Small, slightly geometric shapes [in jewelry] are good, as are smoothly curved swirls.”
• N - “Unconstructed styles with soft or rounded-edged geometric shapes are most effective.” “high heels should be very angular and straight, not tapered” “unconstructed pouches” “Simple geometrics in supple leather” “softly geometric [belts]” “unconstructed [hats]. Large, loose, and floppy. Shaggy-haired fur.” “Soft or rounded-edged geometrics [for jewelry]”
• G - “All accessories should be small, crisp, geometric, and colorful” “tailored and angular [shoes] in lightweight leather. Unusual shapes in toes and heels are excellent (asymmetrics, wedges, sharp points, etc.) as are bold colors and printed fabric.” “Small, crisp geometrics [for bags]” “Stiff leather [belts] with geometric buckles.” “Jewelry should be small and sharp and in geometric, asymmetrical, or irregular shapes.”

Detail

• D - “sleek & elegant”
• R - “ornate” “strappy, slender-heeled [shoes] with tapered or open toes” “[Flats] with ornamentation” “[For bags,] Ornamentation or luxurious detail (beads, gathers, trim).” “[For belts,] All beaded, bejeweled, or sparkly styles are excellent.” “belts are a focal point, and should be selected as carefully as a fine piece of jewelry” “Jewelry should always be delicate and lavish, with intricate and ornate touches. Rounded shapes, curves, swirls, and lots of dangles… sparkly materials are essential… and an antique, baroque, or rococo effect is desirable.”
• C - “simple, clean, and elegant” “Be careful not to overdo! Go elegant instead of extreme.”
• N - “Accessories should be kept minimal; plain and simple is your best look here” “evening sandals should be very bare, not strappy” “belts should be simple” “[For jewelry, think] “wearable art”... or it can be bright and funky costume pieces that add pizzazz! Earthy materials are very elegant and sophisticated on you (copper, silver, amber, turquoise, etc.). Hard-finished enamels and glass are fun, especially when used in bold colors for vivid accents”
• G - “[Accessories] should call attention to themselves as detail” “Contrast is being strived for with your use of accessories, as well as bringing out your wit and a sense of fun.” “[For shoes] bold colors and printed fabric. Flats of all kinds should always be funky and fun (patent leather, trimmed, etc.)” “Brightly colored belts are excellent aids in breaking your line.” “[For jewelry] Brightly colored enamel, stone, or glass are best. Very contemporary avant-garde pieces are excellent on you, as are trendy pieces that accentuate your wit.”

Some random observations from me about this category

• In keeping with the general themes, D fam again shines more with much bolder or larger scale accessories than everyone else, although they don't need a ton of detail within them. The overall shape seems to do most of the heavy lifting.
• In contrast, G fam and R fam once again call for a lot of detail within their accessories. They also get the most fun-sounding shoes (to me, a magpie).
• And again N, C, and D have the cleaner strategies for accessories, although N does have a more G-like approach recommended for fun colorful jewelry.

7. In closing, some keywords

Picked out from the sections for each main family. I find these helpful to kind of paint a word picture of the overall vibe each family is recommended to go for.

• D - sharp, geometric, elongated, sculpted, sleek, streamlined, defined, structured, clean, bold, sweeping, angular, tailored, elegant, long, straight, contemporary, avant-garde, crisp, modern, chiseled, high-contrast
• R - soft, rounded, ornate, intricate, flowing, draping, light, shiny, plush, sheer, delicate, curved, tapered, sparkle, gathers, folds, blended, luxurious, fluid, antique, shirred, flounces, frills, fluffy, swirls, watercolor, rich, abstract, sophisticated, strappy, ornamentation, beaded, bejeweled, lavish, rococo, elaborate, colorful, glitzy
• C - smooth, even, blended, controlled, softly tailored, slightly flowing, clean, elegant, luscious, understated, quality, moderate, simple, minimal, crisp, symmetrical, gathers, slim, beaded, sleek, natural
• N - geometric, soft, rounded edges, irregular, asymmetric, relaxed, straight, softly tailored, unconstructed, narrow, slim, loose, easy, textured, plush, matte, minimal, plain, simple, open, casual, chic, separates, mix and match, pattern, color, sophisticated, easy, elongated, short, zip, verve, pizzazz, bold, bright, pastel, vivid, wild, imaginative, funky, blended, chunky, elegant, tousled, free, fresh-faced, glowing, radiant, healthy
• G - small, sharp, geometric, fitted, crisp, tailored, straight, staccato, severe, animated, broken, short, detail, defined, flat, light, matte, sheen, moderate, call attention, colorful, trim, outlined, piping, ribbing, contrast, pleats, angular, ties, lapels, narrow, well-coordinated separates, tapered, stiff, slim, asymmetrical, bold, sassy, splashes, bright, high contrast, wild, chic, contemporary, humorous, wit, fun, angular, unusual shapes, prints, irregular, avant-garde, sleek, beading, tousled, cropped, fresh-faced, glowing, doe-eyed

Phew! You made it to the end. Hopefully it was helpful, or gave you some ideas of smaller, more approachable categories to explore for HTTs. If not, at least it was a great exercise for my own weird brain processing lol. Feel free to drop any observations/thoughts you might have in the comments, I'm curious what everyone else sees or thinks is notable or interesting!