Talk:List of Star Trek aliens

Colors in tables

I have suggestion to change colors for races that are only mentioned to yellow, so there is green for appeared, yellow for mentioned, and red for not appeared (and mentioned). --Andy0101 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, does anyone have any objection to it? --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 01:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally forgot about this. I just saw this suggestion in my contributions and since there are no objections I decided to execute it. I've replaced {{Yes}}* with {{partial|Mentioned}}. Personally I would like a bit darker yellow, but {{partial}} is the default template for these kind of things. Anyway, it looks more clearly now. --Andy0101 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Androids

What about Androids? Are they not considered a race or species?

Hmm, well they would have to meet some requirements in order to be considered a race or species, firstly they would have to be alive and sentient, which is debateable when concerning ST Androids, they would also have to be an independent society and able to reproduce.

Data might be considered alive, but I don't think his kind could be considered a species as there was only ever 3 or 4 of them ever made, and they were never an independent society.

There was a society of Androids in one Voyager episode that might make this list though (I can't remember what they were called though).

--Hibernian 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say 'no' to androids, because they're not really a race or a species (just as "humanoids" should not be listed). Marky1981 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But Data was ruled to be: a "living, breathing," sentient Individual by the Federation Council. So was Lore, before he was taken apart. Besides, Data can feel emotions now, despite being able to trun them on/off at will. That has to count for something.

Misc

Don't forget the Nausicans ...

Don't let anyone stop you: [1]

Cburnett 21:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a Tholian article on Wikipedia? Ought to be linked from this page.

The Sheliak are one the list, but do not have an entry. DBBell 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How did "Mitchelonian" manage stay on the page for so long? Looks like clear vandalism to me. -Shane Lawrence 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ktarians (again)

The segment about the Ktarians is almost completely inaccurate. Seeing as how Etana Jol is the only full Ktarian we've ever seen, I would be more inclined to believe that her appearance is typical of the average Ktarian (or at least the average Ktarian female) than that she is somehow an aberration or "not Ktarian". Since Naomi Wildman is part human, her appearance was likely affected by that human half of her parentage--meaning that she, not Etana Jol, is more likely the one with the aberration in appearance. Also, Naomi was a child, whereas Etana Jol was a full adult; it's possible that the spines on her forehead eventually fall off as a Ktarian child matures and/or that they are eventually absorbed into the large frontal lobes on their foreheads--Naomi's half-human genes may have prevented this from happening, as she was depicted as still having the spines as a grown adult in the Voyager episode "Shattered."

Furthermore, if there is any episode of ANY Star Trek series that specifically states that the Ktarians later joined the Federation after the events of "The Game," or that they were ever part of the Federation, please cite it here as I for one have never seen such an episode, and there is no reference to that being the case either in the Star Trek Encyclopedia or on Startrek.com. The suggestion that the actions of Etana Jol in "The Game" were those of some extremist faction and not the directive of the Ktarian government itself seems highly far-fetched, especially seeing as how Etana Jol was wearing an official military uniform in the episode and she spoke of "the Expansion" as if it was most definitely a directive of the Ktarian political leadership. The way in which Ktarians are never again mentioned as enemies of the Federation on TNG, DS9, or Voyager is more likely attributed to the producers simply forgetting that "The Game" ever happened and that the Ktarians were originally supposed to be enemies, instead only remembering various references to their culture that were common on The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.

For an in-universe explanation, consider the following: clearly, in "The Game," the Ktarians seemed to be under the rule of some sort of militaristic, probably totalitarian (and possibly matriarchal) government. Perhaps Ktarian refugees have fled their homeworld and found sanctuary in the Federation, explaining their seemingly ubiquitous presence, the popularity of their food etc., and even how a Ktarian/Human hybrid could be possible in the form of Naomi Wildman. While this is conjecture, it's far more likely to be accurate than the fanon explanations of the Ktarians going from enemies of the Federation to members of the Federation in less than a decade, or that a single, small faction acting without the consent of a government that was subordinate to the Federation managed to concoct a highly sophisticated plan to take over the Federation, including the creation of at least one if not a whole fleet of miltary vessels (which the Enterprise crew seemed at least initially unfamiliar with at the end of the episode), without anyone knowing about it and while managing to give every appearance of their actions being taken with the official sanction of their government.

Also, I've seen no proof that their homeworld is in the Alpha Quadrant; in fact given that the episode took place in the Phoenix Cluster and taking into consideration the frequency of appearances by the Romulans in the first half of TNG's third season, I would be more inclined to believe that they are in fact a Beta Quadrant civilization.--Antodav 05:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll restate what I wrote about this in the Talk:United Federation of Planets page, read what this Website has to say about the Ktarians, http://www.stdimension.org/int/

I can't seem to post an address to the exact page of this site, But anyway, go to the Investigating Trek area of the site, and then go to the Biology section, down the bottom of that page is the section on the "Ktarians". The Page is a little out of date but their explanation of the Ktarians is spot on.

Oh and as for evidence that they joined the Federation, a quote from that site, ("The Ktarians were officially with the Federation but they sympathized with the Maquis", [VOY] The Voyager Conspiracy), enough said.

--Hibernian 02:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

M for mention?

How about adding 'M' for "Race mentioned, but does not actually appear."? Then you could wipe the slightly clumsy disclaimer about mere mentions not "counting" and add more info!

For the list of appearances, in addition to Y and N, how about M (for mention) or R (for reference) for species that have only been mentioned but not appeared in an episode. Marky1981 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Races or species?

The article should be renamed List of Star Trek races, since it doesn't deal with races, but species.

Shouldn't this page be called List of Star Trek species not List of Star Trek races? Marky1981 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts on this? If no one has any objections I will move this page to List of Star Trek species in a few days. Marky1981 21:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the term Races is more often used by Star Trek Fans, though species would probably also be just as legitimate.

One thing I can think of against this, is that species may refer to any organisms in the ST universe like animals (i.e. Targs etc...), whereas "Races" does give the meaning of an intelligent life-form (although Race is not a very scientifically accurate term).

I'm not sure which is better, I think it needs more discussion before it's changed.

--Hibernian 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I won't move it till it's been discussed more. I don't see any problem with listing animal species such as Targ (obviously we won't list all Earth's animals! Just the Star Trek made up ones - there's not too many anyway). I suppose an alternative could be humanoids but then that doesn't cater for things like the Horta etc. Will keep thinking! Marky1981 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Race is definitely the correct term both because it is used by fans and because of biological issues raised and addressed in the show. For example, the Romulans and Vulcans may be the same species and the borg are composed of many species. Similarly, Worf's 3/4 Klingon son and Tasha Yar's half-human, half-romulan daughter Sela, as improbable as they are, prove that many species in the Star Trek Universe are capable of cross breeding which raises enormous questions about "life in the universe" (this is however addressed in TOS and TNG), but removes designation as being a different species as two different spieces are incapable of breeding. Because Alexander's Mother was capable of producing offspring, this would give Klingons and Humans the same species designation according to current biological practice like white and black people.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the race arguement for certain members of this list is the fact they aren't exclusively biological at all, For example the Q or Borg. The Q is argueably not even alive according to modern practice of defining living things (which is completely useless to Star Trek, with silicon-based, anarobic, and multi-dimensional beings, and perhaps a current hinderance to Xenobiology and S.E.T.I.) and the Borg is similar to a virus. Is god a species for that matter? The use of species would require combining many of the humanoid races on the list as well as trying to superimpose science to science-fiction, a retroactive impossibility. ~unsigned

Circular Links

Surely you don't need the race names to link to this page. It's just pointless and bad form.

Enterprise final episode

Didn't Counselor Troi appear in the final episode of Enterprise? Yes, she isn't set in the time period, but she did appear on the series, so shouldn't Betazoids be considered appearing in ENT? Smeggysmeg 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a tricky one, she did technical appear in Enterprise, but it is said that that episode was really a TNG episode, so I don't know.--Hibernian 17:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say 'no' as she only appears in the series on a technicality, not really part of Enterprise. Besides, she's only half Betazoid :) Marky1981 19:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Humans

I didn't get any information when I clicked on the link to "Humans". Shouldn't there be a page describing how humans fit in with the rest of the races, i.e. how they first came in contact with the races, what impact that contact had on human technology and culture, and also how other races percieve humans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.138.37.236 (talk • contribs) 01:51, August 6, 2006 (UTC)

I started a "Human" section with a link to Human (Star Trek). I did the same for several other races that have their own articles. UncreativeNameMaker 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Table

I am of opinion that the table can be different, with a "*" for Yes and left it blank if not, like below:

Race	ST:TOS	ST:TNG	ST:DS9	ST:VOY	ST:ENT
Race 1	*		*	*
Race 2		*		*	*
Race 3		*	*	*
Race 4		*	*	*
Race 5	*	*	*	*

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.138.37.236 (talk • contribs) 01:51, August 6, 2006 (UTC)

I think I prefer Y/N, as it leaves open the possiblility of someone adding a race, knowing they appear in ST:ENT, but having no idea whether they appear in ST:TOS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's no way to distinguish between a definite 'No' and leaving one blank by just not knowing. You could possibly use '-' for no, so there are no blanks. I'd still also like to use another symbol to mean a race was mentioned in a series, but did not appear. Marky1981 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say I agree, but upon taking another look at the table in the article, it is very hard to distinguish the Ns from the Ys, with a quick glance. It actually might be better to leave a blank space or a '-' for No, and just leave the Ys. Right now the table is just a big block of text and is difficult to make out, blank spaces or '-' would make it much easier to see the information you're looking for. BTW I do agree, in theory, that there should be an M for Mentioned, however it might be difficult to implement.--Hibernian 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I would like the table of appearances to be removed altogether. Anyone who is interested in a particular race/species can navigate quickly using the newly-added A-Z contents table and read about them there. We could say which series they appeared in the description. I just find the table unsightly and not particularly useful, especially when they're mostly full of 'N's. Does anyone else want to get rid of the table, for whatever reason? Marky1981 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with that. Although I think the table is a bit unsightly and something should be done to make it clearer, I don't think it should be done away with. The reasons being that even if we can navigate by the A to Z thing, it's not the same, there are many races on this list that most people will never have even heard of, so they can't find something on an alphabetical list if they don't know how it's spelt. We still have to have a table as an overview and an easy way to find what you're looking for, or just to find things you weren't looking for. --Hibernian 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Should we include races not mentioned in any of the broadcast media? I've noticed seem recent additions which claim to be only in (unnamed) novels. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. There is defiantly an issue with that. There are lots of Races/Species that only appear in books and Computer games etc. I suppose it's an issue of Canon, and as far as I am aware non-canon books and stuff aren't really part of the Star Trek universe, though obviously they are of some significance. For instance I remember from the game Star Trek: Klingon Academy, that there was a race called the Sha'kurians, but I think they only ever existed in that game, so should they be on this list? Maybe we should have two pages, one for canon Races and for non-canon? --Hibernian 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There's still many more races

I was just writing a section about the races that appear in the game Star Trek: Birth of the Federation, and I found that 12 out of the 30 I was listing have no mention on this page or anywhere else on Wikipedia (apart from references to them in some of the episode articles). The ones I've confirmed that have no entries are: Acamarians, Caldonians, Chalnoth, Edo, Malcorians, Mintakans, Mizarians, Takarans, Talarians, Tamarians, Ullians, and Yaridians. (Edo just goes to the City and Tamarian redirects to the episode they were in). So there's certainly allot more to do. So anybody what to start writing them all? lol --Hibernian 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless you know that they appeared in either an episode of the TV series, or a movie, I would leavethem off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.226.103.99 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh they all definitely exist in the Star Trek universe. Every one of the species listed there was shown on at-least one episode of TNG (and some in multiple series). The only problem I have is that it would take a long time to write a description of all of them, as I would have to go though every episode, plus I'm not very good making tables formatting work right. --Hibernian 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Edo were encounted in Justice (TNG episode) and I have added them to this list. Cburnett 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Memory alpha links

I have removed all memory alpha links from this article of races that have their own articles. The MA link can go on their respective page. Cburnett 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Each race that has a separate article should have a small (one paragraph or two) description on this article as well. Cburnett 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tabulating list

I would like to propose converting this list to use a table structure similar to List of Star Trek characters#A and the episode lists. Below is an example couple of rows:

Image	Race	Home planet	Episodes M = mention only
	Description
	Bajoran	Bajor (M-class)	Ensign Ro (TNG) Emissary (DS9)
	The Bajorans (or Bajora) are a humanoid species with characteristic nose creases. They live on the planet Bajor. They are a deeply spiritual people, who worship The Prophets. They are enemies of the Cardassians, who occupied Bajor and treated the Bajorans as slaves in the early 24th century.
Not seen on screen	Berellian	Unknown	Redemption (TNG) M
	When Lieutenant Commander Data takes temporary command of the USS Sutherland during the Klingon Civil War, his first officer on the Sutherland, Lieutenant Commander Thomas Hobson, implies that, as an android, Data is out of place commanding a Federation starship. Hobson compares the apparent dichotomy to that posed by a Klingon counselor or a Berellian engineer; "they're just not suited for those positions."
	Borg	Unknown	Q Who? (TNG) The Best of Both Worlds (TNG) Scorpion (VOY) Regeneration (ENT) FC
	The Borg is the arch nemesis species of the Federation. The Borg is a species without individuality where every member is apart of "the collective" in an attempt to achieve perfection. They assimilate species and their technology when it suits them.

The episode list would not have to contain every single episode that race appears, but perhaps the first one from each series and any important ones featuring that race. This would do away with the table of appearances at the top of the article, which I do not think is very useful on its own: someone is more likely to want to know a bit about the race, rather than just if they appeared in a series. If a race is mentioned but never seen on screen the space for the image would just say 'Not seen on screen', and perhaps we could add (for example) '(m)' to any episode in which the race is mentioned (but never seen).

Please let me know of any comments. Marky1981 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like it could be good, but there might be some copyright issues with the pictures (not that I would care). Although I don't think we should delete the table of appearances, I think it should be kept, as it is useful, at-least in my opinion. --Hibernian 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm always up for tables. :) Cburnett 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've converted the B's to the table. I think some of the long descriptions can be cut down (perhaps moved to a sub article if there's a lot of information). It's not complete - still need to fill in more episodes and images but it's a start. Marky1981 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By converting the "B's" to a table, you have broken the HTML links within the document. You also made it very difficult for anyone to revert it with all the HTML associated with it. Please either finish the entire article, or put it back the way it was. -- Elaich 03:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Which links are broken? Tabulating the entire article will take a long time for one person, perhaps you could consider helping? Marky1981 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All the links from the "Appearance" table at the top which lead into the B's are broken, as are links from other species into the 'B'. For example, List of Star Trek races#neo-Borg should have an internal link to List of Star Trek races#Borg, which no longer exists. I agree, it should be put back unless you can find a good way to regenerate the internal links as HTML links, is Wikipedia links are not longer possible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of a link that would be broken, look at the link from #Anatarans to #Denobulan. I haven't found one specifically into the B's yet.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

True, the links from the table of appearances are currently broken, however the table of appearances isn't set in stone. If and when the article is fully tabulated, I don't see the need for the appearances table, as each species' entry would list the episodes (and therefore series) in which they appeared. This also has the benefit of pinning down the actual episode(s) they were in, as opposed to a just a series, which is rather vague and not as useful. In the meantime the links can just be made to the initial letter, so in the worst-case scenario, a reader would have to scroll down a few lines. In addition, Wikipedia guidelines discourage internal links pointing to subsections, but to the top of the article. This surely is a minor drawback compared to the advantages of using a structured table (image, listing episodes etc. in neat, readable columns), which is how similar articles are structured (list of characters, episodes etc.). Initial reaction to my table proposals were positive, however if general consensus is to revert, that's fine. Please comment, but please don't insist that the table of appearances is somehow essential to this article without giving good reason. Thanks, Marky1981 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a template for anyone who wishes to help create the tables:

Image	Race	Home planet	Episodes M = mention only
	Description

Marky1981 wrote:

"In addition, Wikipedia guidelines discourage internal links pointing to subsections, but to the top of the article. "

Could you point to a specific guideline? The only one I can think of is in regard redirects, as redirects to subsections do not work properly. However, intra-article links seem quite appropriate, and, in this context, helpful. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and I think you are correct, the discouragement was referring to inter-Wiki articles, rather than intra-article links. However, I've found out how to link to the races in the table by using the HTML span tag (see Help:Link or the template above). I will put these in the A and B tables now. Marky1981 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Races from novels

In the AFD for Centauran, I suggested merging a brief summary of that article here. However, it has been pointed out that this race apparently only features in novels, not in any of the TV shows or films, and that therefore this merge might not be appropriate. I would therefore suggest people involved in maintaining this page provide their feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centauran (2nd nomination). JulesH 13:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centauran (2nd nomination)

As per discussion, consensus was merge into this page. Since I am not an involved editor (and are actually into Star Wars :P) I did a full merge, and placed a {{rewrite-section}} and changed the "unreferenced" to be about a section. I think this captures consensus pretty well. Of course, feel free to debate and edit about this content in this page, as it is now its home. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ter(r)el(l)ians

There are Terellians, Terrelians and Terrellians listed - mostly mentioned only. I doubt these are really three different species. --Thick Peter 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually they probably are, in-fact it seems there are several more similar races. Some fans have already noticed this bizarre naming convention, for instance check out this page [2]. --Hibernian 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What does real mean in this context? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well "real", as in mentioned or shown in Star Trek, what did you think I meant? --Hibernian 15:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What source do we have for the spelling of the race name? The actual script?

Now, if the races referred to above had different characteristics, that might be different.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Animated Series

Could we add ST:TAS to this table please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.88.63 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! The animated series is way more cannon than some of these others -- it had the original actors doing the voices, the great bird of the galaxy, and it was serilaised by Alan Dean Foster. There were great aliens!--86.177.138.165 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Centaurans

What happened to the entry about Alpha Centaurans?! ````AL

By Trek canon, Alpha Centauri is a human/Federation colony without a native species. This is a list for Trek canon species-so, just the series and movies. --CF90 (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:STSamaritan.jpg

The image File:STSamaritan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Caitians

Is there any reliable source stating the dancer in Final Frontier was a Caitian? She's felinoid, yes, but a lot less so than Caitians (no fur, for one thing). Memory Alpha says production documents called her a Kzinretti, but they've got fur as well. Daibhid C (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

in-universe?

I checked out the page EEMIV listed, and it says

"The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info."

Well the first sentence of this article not only says "This is a list of sentient species and races from the fictional universe of the Star Trek media franchise", but also contains a link to the terms "fictional universe" as well as "Star Trek", of which both articles talk about being fictional again, in the first sentence or two.
The second sentence says "This table shows a list of races and their appearances on the five Star Trek television series as well as the 2009 movie Star Trek", which also links to the 2009 movie, which again mentions it being fiction in the first sentence.

Since the table is just about the only thing left on this article, and everything surrounding the table talks about how it's fictional, how does that meet EEMIV's criteria for in-universe template? --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 01:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the table is just about the only thing left on this article - You seem to have missed the giant morass of prose beneath the table. Regardless, the list contains virtually no -- possible none at all -- information about development, critical reaction, or other content that offers an appropriately encyclopedic real-world perspective. Hence, {{in-universe}}. --EEMIV (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha.. yup! don't ask *me* how either, but I missed the giant morass of prose beneath the table Somehow I got to the end of the table and thought I was at the end of the article, I see your point now...not sure how we'd go about fixing it though since it's mostly just a list of aliens on a tv show about space exploration... hmm... --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 02:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lemma

Shouldn't this article be properly titled "List of Star Trek species"?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Powers ^T 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, more accurately, List of Star Trek sentient species, as creatures like the Klingon targ are not included. Powers ^T 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nausicaan is named after Nausicaä (character)

Nausicaä (character) from Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film). I forgot his name, but one of the special effects techno-babel writers is an avowed big time anime fan, and there was an interview where he said as much. Many of TNG episodes have anime reference (as noted). Their is one where Lt. Data discovered the small work droids with feet was sentient, was modeled closely to a Dirty Pair robotic character, "Nammo". Its been a long time, so I cannot recall all the names ATM. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I found the episode, The Quality of Life (Star Trek: The Next Generation), and the person is [Rick Sternbach]. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Klingons in new 2009 movie

The Klingons actually appear in the deleted scenes in the Movie. Not sure if that counts or not but might be worth mentioning. 68.93.135.1 (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted scenes and other non-appearances generally don't make the cut for coverage unless they are subject of significant commentary or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

the cairn is missing

they are a telepathic race featured in the star trek the next episode dark page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Added! Good eye, sniper! --Landiien (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)