QUOTE (hermit @ Mar 30 2013, 01:12 AM)

Animals in the rain forest? Like? All Technocritters in Running Wild are commensal species (rats, crows, "insects", cats, dogs, raccoons, ferrets, and the oddballs snakes (which are claimed to be popular pets in the description) and dolphins, which are partially domesticated - problems of salt water and radio waves nonwithstanding). Since all these animals at least partially have connections with humanity (they would not NEED technomancy without a decent technosphere to begin with anyway), they could be changed by whatever changes technomancers as well. I do agree, though, that this was probably not entirely thought through.
The animal I was referencing was apparently an ocelot. (Not a leopard or Jaguar. I read the book quite some time ago). Page 187, Running wild. Both the animal and the fact that it was in the rainforest can be found on that page. "When the first corporate reports about technomancers appeared, the connection was obvious, although I would have never expected one to manifest in the rainforest. It is still something that completely eludes us (but to my own satisfaction, not us alone)"
And for the record, I don't think you're using commensal correctly. Commensalism is where one organism benefits with out affecting other species. Most of the ones you list harm the other when they benefit. If eating the humans food, spreading sickness or one another in predatory fashion.
Nor to my knowledge are dolphins domesticated. I.E. having been changed on a genetic level in order to accentuate traits that benifit humans. Nor has their evolutionary process been influenced by humans to meet our needs. Some small subsets of some species of dolphins can be trained or 'tamed', but that's not the same as domestication.
As for not needing it, that's half of my point. Bugs, or dolphins in the middle of the ocean or that ocelot in the middle of the rain forest didn't need technomancy (Though in the examples they found uses for it)
And I -fully- agree, what ever changes technomancers, changed the technocritters as well.
I was saying that Technomancers wouldn't have been changed by _______ but the technocritters out in the wilds or depths of the world, from bugs to cats to cetaceans were some how changed by some different _______.
That blank being what ever it IS.
So it's hard to say "Were technocritters purposefully put in there to bust some of the 'easy' guesses at Technomancer origin, or "Hey techno critters would be cool" with noone ever going "Well in secret we know _______ triggered/caused technomancers, but... that doesn't fit for the ocelot sitting in the jungle."
I'd like to think that the writers thought it out and purposefully put technocritters in as a foil or to add more questions, but being realistic, it's every bit as likely that the depth of the technomancer question wasn't really addressed in their genesis as something in the gaming supplement. I'd have to guess at best, 50/50 chance. Either way.