I don't think so, though Jim would have the final say, and he's already commented that
species sizes do tend to be significantly different.
However, to have a society of 'morphs able to interrelate on so many levels, the smaller
species are likely to be significantly larger than their non-sentient cousins while the larger
species would be significantly smaller--by proportion. On Earth the mice and other
rodentia would likely be about the size of our "Little People", probably little, if any, shorter
than 3' tall while equines and cervids might run about 7' tall. Jim has already said that the
skunk sisters run just under 5', so a human bra size of about 24C would not be unlikely.
Even with humans, that 1" increment between cup sizes seems to make the proportions of
the larger women look a bit smaller than on the thinner ones.
If you want an interesting viewpoint on women's cup sizes (and if you can find an
example,) the US Army back in WWII actually had a guide to help their service men buy
dresses for their girlfriends that related the woman's breast size by commonly known
items like pancakes (A), fried eggs (B), etc. Whether any copies of this guide still exist, I
can't say.
--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "chrysaetos@..." <chrysaetos@...> wrote:
>
> You'd still have to recalibrate. Each letter, for humans, is an inch of
> difference between chest and bust. That is, if you measured her chest
> (just below the breasts) and got 36", and her bust showed 40", that
> means she's a D cup.
> At least, that's how it started. A lot of manufacturers don't stick
> very well to that anymore, DD is actually E for some reason, and above
> that things get nonstandard.
>
Received on Wed Sep 17 2008 - 06:44:47 CDT