Specimen Report: V-2
You are now accessing materials classified under VelumDex Industries Internal Archive Protocol. Clearance has been verified. Your activity within this system is being monitored and recorded in accordance with corporate policy.
Project Designation: Comparative Physiological & Behavioural Analysis (V-1 vs V-2)
Lead Observers: Dr. █. █████ and Dr. █. ███████
Facility: Mariana Gate Refugium
Abstract: Specimen V-2 represents the second confirmed encounter with homo aquatis, exhibiting extreme divergence in both physiology and behaviour from Specimen V-1. Unlike V-1, which was determined post-mortem to be herbivorous and physiologically stressed by captivity, V-2 demonstrates clear carnivorous adaptation, heightened aggression, and advanced predatory intelligence.
Initial capture attempts failed due to insufficient containment infrastructure and severe underestimation of its physical capabilities. V-2 escaped before full transfer to the Refugium and has since been implicated in multiple maritime attacks, including the destruction of submersibles and fatalities among expedition personnel.
Behavioural patterns strongly suggest goal-oriented aggression tied to the presumed survival of V-1, indicating complex cognition, memory retention, and possible emotional or social bonding within the species.
Note: This document may contain outdated content, missing items, and is in need of revision. All information must be cross-examined with other, more up-to-date resources to determine its accuracy.
TW: Violence, gory descriptions of loss of life.
Failed Acquisition & Encounter:
V-2 was located in proximity to the Aurelia Zone 3 days after the death of V-1. Detection occurred after unusual sonar disturbances and the disappearance of two Black Ops reconnaissance drones.
Initial visual confirmation noted:
Rapid, deliberate movement patterns that were inconsistent with passive marine fauna, even incomparable to the hyperaggression seen in V-1 during her captivity.
Repeated circling of V-1's capture co-ordinates, presumptions had originally surrounded an idea that V-2 was hunting a prey species, but other behaviours suggested otherwise.
Aggressive response to submersible presence before provocation or attempts to capture V-2 were not even initiated yet.
Capture was attempted using reinforced containment harpoons and electrified netting, which had succeeded in injuring V-2, but not to any point of incapacitation. This failed after ~40 minutes and V-2 escaped.
Observed during containment breach:
There was a structural compromise of reinforced alloy restraints, as though V-2 was strategising its thrashing against the netting at the weak points.
V-2 initiated a direct attack on personnel vessels rather than escape-focused behaviour, causing 2 fatalities and 5 injuries. The first victim was eviscerated and disemboweled as V-2 orally extracted and consumed their organs, while the second victim was held by the head and legs to be meticulously pulled in half until the spinal column was visible. V-2 proceeded to eat the second victim whole. V-2 threw the remnants of the first victim towards our transport craft. The maliciousness of V-2's killings was beyond mere animalism, and it acted as if it were willing to taunt or intimidate.
High-frequency acoustic emissions are significantly more intense than V-1’s recorded vocalisations; the scale of V-2's body may have contributed to a deeper pitch.
V-2 retreated into deep water after disabling the transport craft.
External Morphology: Comparative Analysis
While we can only use the photography taken from the transport vehicle to compare with the autopsy report, to be able to compare the differences and similarities between the two subjects we have now encountered. We have been tempted to label this creature as a different species entirely, but our only determiners have primarily been around scale and dietary differences.
Similarities to V-1:
V-2 appeared to have a humanoid cranial and thoracic structure paired with an elongated caudal body adapted for powerful aquatic propulsion; the exact same body plan as our previous "Mermaid", homo aquatis, V-1. It had opposable thumbs and articulated upper limbs.
Differences from V-1:
Size: V-2 is estimated to be significantly larger overall, with a thicker caudal base and greater muscle density. In comparison to V-1, V-2 appeared to be 4 times her size or greater.
Dermal Structure: While V-1 had smooth, flexible skin with minor discoloration under stress, V-2 seems to have reinforced dermal layers, potentially scale-integrated, which made it resistant to most external trauma; this is to say that V-2 looked armoured and could've been greatly injured by our nets if it wasn't.
Craniofacial Features: V-2 has an enlarged jaw structure with pronounced dentition that was visible externally. There is a reduced resemblance to human facial softness in favour of a more angular and predatory appearance.
We are lead to believe that V-2 is a male, but this is speculatory and only being enforced by the muscle density, and, as we have realised from only seeing these two specimens, there is no external sexual dimorphism between homo aquatis that we can tell with this small sample.
Respiratory System
We believe that both specimens could be amphibious, though we have not seen V-2's reaction to open air. We can speculate the potential for dual-function respiratory capability (lungs + gill structures) and gill slits capable of sealing under stress or environmental change.
We support this speculation because we saw larger branchial structures around V-2's throat and ribs, suggesting greater oxygen extraction efficiency and thus, the likelihood of increased tolerance for surface exposure.
We have interpreted that V-2 is less environmentally fragile than V-1 and may be more physiologically adaptable, possibly due to ecological niche differences in other dimorphic traits (if our belief of V-2 being a male is correct).
Circulatory & Muscular Adaptations
When compared to V-1, V-2's body looked to have more extreme muscular hypertrophy, particularly in the caudal propulsion segments, shoulder and arm structures, and even a set of fins down its spine that were specialised more like limbs than traditional dorsal structures.
We experienced its capacity to breach reinforced materials and generate forces sufficient to crush our drones.
Thus, we can conclude that V-2 is built for sustained high-force exertion, unlike V-1, whose physiology appears optimised for endurance, grazing, and navigation rather than combat.
Neurology & Cognition
We can only speculate through behavioural evidence that V-2 uses ocular tracking, echolocation, and can process light sources differently. We wonder if chemical tracking in the water or some sort of olfactory-equivalent method had been used for V-2 to circulate V-1's capture site in the way that it had. When encountered, V-2 prioritised the destruction of SDEF equipment over escape attempts.
The distinctions that we can infer is that both V-1 and V-2 displayed obersvational awareness, the former expressing a possible fear response while the latter displayed intentional aggression, memory retention, and we may go as far to believe there is goal-driven behaviour as well.
We deduce this claim because of V-2's tactical targeting of vessels and personnel. We continue to have updates (this report being written 4 days after the initial encounter) of V-2 repeatedly returning to V-1's capture site, and still attacking Black Ops divers. Since this report was written, we have seen 6 more fatalities.
V-2’s actions suggest intelligence and motivated cognition, potentially driven by social bonding and loss recognition. We say this because believe that V-1 and V-2 were connected in some way.
Dietary Distinction
V-1 has been confrmed to be herbivorous, as established through her autopsy report. She had herbivorous dentition (grinding, scraping), a multi-chambered stomach for plant digestion, and her enzyme profiles showed incompatibility with animal proteins.
V-2 is only inferred to be carnivorous from our observations in this comparison document. It displays sharp, serrated teeth that are designed for tearing, trapping, and ripping flesh, and we have experienced a total of 8 personnel deaths, and every case documents the victims being partially or completely consumed.
We can confirm V-2's active predation on marine fauna and human personnel from the partial remains recovered from the attack sites, and how these attacks are not done in defense.
We have come to conclude that V-2 is an obligate carnivore, representing either, but we are not sure if this can be deduced through differing sexual dimorphism within homo aquatis, if V-2 is a separate subspecies, or if there is a chance to believe that there could be caste-based ecological roles within this species that separate themselves into predators and grazers. There have also been speculations that V-2 might be kindred to a "Siren", while V-1 is kindred to a "Mermaid", but we do not support this theory due to it being tied to mythology rather than any scientific evaluation.
Behavioural Profile Summary
V-1
Defensive aggression.
Signs of distress and fear.
Possible communicative vocalisations.
No confirmed predatory behaviour.
V-2
Hyperaggression independent of immediate threat.
Persistent territorial or investigative return patterns.
Targeted attacks on technology and personnel.
Destructive actions beyond survival necessity.
V-2 attacks appear purpose-driven, not opportunistic, even if that looked like the case originally.
Echolocation
Both specimens produced complex vocalisations, but we have noticed the following through a recording of V-1 nearing her time of death beside the vocalisations that V-2 made when first found at the capture site. We have compared a similar melodic tone side by side; we noticed a brief synchronicity in their songs, which is evident towards the end of both recordings when played at the same time. This is what also cements the potential connection between V-1 and V-2, though we remain unaware of how and in what ways.
V-1: Structured, rhythmic, possibly communicative or echolocative.
V-2: Louder, more chaotic, with spikes in frequency capable of disrupting equipment.
Speculations popularly surround the idea that V-2 may be attempting long-range communication while allegedly searching for V-1.
Containment Failure Analysis
V-2 could not be contained due to the underestimations made of its strength, our inadequate materials and resources to capture such a beast, our current lack of behavioural understanding, and how we still barely have any species-specific containment protocols yet.
Even with current Refugium infrastructure, successful containment remains doubtful without any pressure-stabilised mega-enclosures, reinforced adaptive materials, and proper non-lethal sedation methods that can be better tailored to catching them without harm or aggressive reactions.
This is also to say that if we had managed to bring V-2 to the facility, it would have quickly become a hazard for all of us.
Threat Assessment
V-2 is classified as:
Highly intelligent.
Extremely dangerous.
Behaviourally unstable.
Confirmed risks:
Vessel destruction.
Personnel fatality.
Equipment disruption.
Potential escalation if further provoked.
Conclusion
V-2 has demonstrated to us that homo aquatis is not a uniform species in either physiology or behaviour from what we can now tell. Where V-1 was deemed as herbivorous with possible passivity had she not been contained so carelessly, V-2 is a predator with retaliatory aggression.
The most concerning factor is not its strength, but its apparent intent.
V-2’s continued presence suggests it is actively searching for V-1. Given that V-1 is deceased, this creates a sustained feedback loop of aggression, with human activity interpreted as obstruction or captivity. Currently, this leaves us with a threat that we cannot diffuse.
Dr. █. █████ and I can only recommend the following precautions for the safety of the rest of the workforce (whom we hope have read this document thoroughly.)
Make no more attempts of trying to capture V-2, not until we have developed the correct equipment do so correctly.
Development of ethical and containment frameworks specific to homo aquatis should become a priority, more than any Vc, Ve, or Vd document. Our team must invest resources here.
We need to establish more careful protocols for all expeditions in Aurelia Zone; no solo diving and carry underwater microphones to be conscious of V-2's activities. This may also help us in continuing the study of the communicative behaviours of these creatures.
With all that has been said, there stands a non-zero probability that V-2 is not acting purely on instinct. If homo aquatis possesses social bonds, then current evidence may indicate that they do not forget, and possibly, they do not forgive, either.
Meant to post this sooner! I shall now disappear for another handful of months. I can also safely say that I am comfortable using roblox pressure tags again; just know that this project now has a massive deviation from the source material!
