Turning a Creature into a Cute Character Design

If your Instagram discover page is full of posts from digital artists like mine is, there’s a decent chance you may have come across posts by an artist named Feefal (@feefal). Feefal is a very popular illustrator on Instagram, with 1.2 million followers and most of their posts gaining tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of thousands of views on Reels. Feefal describes herself as a lover of biology and cute women, which is reflected in the subject matter of the bulk of her illustrations. For example, one of her pinned posts, and the first post of hers I came across in 2023, can be described as “plant, animal, and fungi cells but they’re personified as women.”

There are many artists who do the same types of illustrations as Feefal where they turn creatures, objects, or even vague ideas into a personified character design. As someone with an interest in both biology and drawing, I wanted to try my own hand at creating an illustration where I turn a creature into a character. 

In keeping with my theme about sea creatures from my previous post, I chose to base my character design on Pelagia noctiluca, a species of jellyfish that is referred to by many common names, the most popular being “mauve stinger”. A fun nickname I’ve also seen for it is the “purple people eater” (yes, like the song).

Taking both morphology and cool facts I read about them into account, this is what I came up (with with the help of my boyfriend, who asked to help and I couldn’t refuse):

Illustration by Priyanka Singh and Kojo Ching

This is the part where I explain my design decisions while telling you cool facts about P. noctiluca. 

  • Hat: Obviously, this is meant to represent the bell, or umbrella, of the jellyfish. It is the main body of the jellyfish where the tentacles branch off from. A jellyfish’s mouth lies in the center of the underside of its umbrella, surrounded by oral arms (we’ll get to those in a second) (Macpherson & Gordon, 2023). You’ll notice that jellyfish have no eyes, so I made the bell-hat cover her eyes. I accept criticisms of this choice as lazy, as I basically just draw a jellyfish on this woman’s head. But will you dare tell her it’s not a look?
  • Dress: Along with the hair-tentacles coming out from the “hat”, this is supposed to be somewhat evocative of the tentacles of the jellyfish with its flowy nature. The mermaid dress silhouette is also supposed to evoke a nautical theme. The mauve stinger has two types of tentacles: thin, string-like ones called statocysts and thicker, frilly ribbon-like ones called oral arms. It has 8 statocysts and 4 oral arms. Statocysts are used for sensing movement and orienting the jellyfish. Oral arms extend from the mouth, contain nematocysts, and aid in prey capture (Macpherson & Gordon, 2023). The sting of a mauve stinger is somewhat severe, although there have not been any fatalities due to their stings (Mariottini et al., 2008).
  • Skin: The skin and the dark parts around the cap are supposed to represent the semi-translucent, soft body of the jellyfish, with the darkness being the ocean showing through.
  • Sharp teeth: I took some creative liberties with this part. No, jellyfish don’t have razor-sharp fangs. Instead, this is supposed to represent the purple people-eater’s predatory nature. They’re said to be opportunistic predators that mainly feed on small phytoplankton, although they can eat prey of various sizes. They can even eat over 1.5 times their body weight in a day. (Larson, 1987). Don’t worry, at least they don’t actually eat people!

 

References:

Macpherson, D., Gordon, D. (2023). Jiggling Jellyfish: a guide to the jellyfish of New Zealand. (Version 2). National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). 

Mariottini, G.L., Giacco, E., Pane, L. (2008). The Mauve Stinger Pelagia noctiluca (Forsskål, 1775). Distribution, Ecology, Toxicity and Epidemiology of Stings. A Review. Mar. Drugs, 6(3): 496-513. doi: 10.3390/md20080025

Larson, R.J. (1987). A Note on the Feeding, Growth, and Reproduction of the Epipelagic Scyphomedusa Pelagia noctiluca (Forskal). Biological Oceanography, 4(4). 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.