Ahahaha, you thought this would be easier than the insects - that's a real laugh. All the same, I think you've shown a good deal of growth over this obviously difficult lesson, and by the end I'm very pleased with your results.

Starting with your organic intersections, these are largely done quite well in terms of the spatial relationships being defined here, although I think your cast shadows tend to be kind of inconsistent. First and foremost, you've got some forms that cast shadows to the left, and others to the right, not maintaining a consistent light source (always think about where your light actually is coming from). Also, those cast shadows aren't consistently falling on the ground beneath each form. Just something to think about when tackling this in the future.

Moving onto your animal constructions, my initial thought was that this lesson would be okay, but still quite rough with a number of issues to point out. What stood out immediately was the fact that you used a lot of contour lines on your birds' wings, and those contour lines were generally drawn quite sloppily, seeming to be relying more on quantity over quality. This kind of overuse of contour lines usually suggests that the student doesn't really understand what they're meant to accomplish with the contour lines - thinking of them as just something they're doing automatically, but not considering how they're a tool to be used for a specific purpose.

Contour lines' effectiveness diminishes with each one you add. The first one you add can potentially (assuming it's been drawn properly to wrap along the surface of the form in a convincing manner) really help establish how that form sits in space. The second may have some additional impact, but will be less meaningful. The third, fourth, etc. all contribute basically nothing. So drawing a bunch of contour lines quickly doesn't give any benefit from their numbers, but it does often mean that we haven't necessarily put the time into each individual one to make them useful in the first place.

Now, in many situations these kinds of contour lines - the ones that sit along the surface of a single form - can be rendered somewhat moot. If we instead use a contour line to define the relationship between two forms (like the joints of the sausage method, or how y ou established the connection between the neck and the torso in the top left bird, the need for any additional contour lines is erased. Those kinds of spatial relationships, when defined, can make the forms feel solid and 3D in relation to one another, which is far stronger and more useful than any such definition of a form being 3D on its own.

Anyway, now that I've hammered that home, I want to say that you seem to have picked up on this, at least to a point, and quickly reduced the number of contour lines you were adding. That's not to say your contour lines couldn't have been drawn a little better when they were used (always think about how they're wrapping around the surface of another form), but there was definitely a big improvement.

As the last leg of this point, you'll notice that when I add additional forms back in the notes here, I didn't add any more contour lines, and they weren't actually necessary. This is because the masses themselves function a lot like contour lines that wrap around the structure beneath them. In doing so, and in using the silhouette of the form to convey a sense of thickness and volume to the form, I'm establishing how that form actually exists in 3D space, relative to the rest of the body. This makes them both feel 3D, and makes the additional contour lines largely unnecessary. Of course to achieve this, putting a lot of thought into how that additional mass wraps around the underlying structure is necessary.

Looking at the horse on the right side of this page, specifically its rump, the additional mass there does a much better job of really conforming and wrapping around the underlying structure. The mass on the rump of the ram on the left of this page however feels a lot less fitted to the structure, and doesn't read as being quite as three dimensional as a result.

The only other thing that really caught my eye in a meaningful way was that the eyesockets on these goats appear to be floating more loosely rather than being buttressed by the muzzle form, the brow ridge, the cheekbone, etc. This is however something you consistently did a better job in on other pages, with the pieces fitting more purposefully together as shown here, creating a sort of 3D puzzle. So I think it's fair to say it just slipped your memory here.

All said and done, the real test for this lesson is the hybrid, and I think you've really done an excellent job of transplanting forms and structures from different animals and references into one while maintaining the believability of that construction. While they're clearly not real, the constructions still feel like they could be, and that's exactly what we're going for here.

So! I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the good work.