QUOTE (colddigger @ Jan 31 2023, 03:15 AM)

That could be solved by shrinking the foot bone to the point of being visibly negligible once meat is on top, and actually I hold curiosity and whether that is able to be shifted around in that part of the wing once it's small enough and become a different form of joint. But I could also be wrong about that too.

That could work, but why is that needed?

Another alternative is that the vertical range of motion can be provided entirely be the turning of the knee while the knee covers the the horizontal motion achieving the same results, but both of those options seem less realistic then just simply gaining flexibiliy around the ankle (or "second knee", or "wrist", or... Albert, might as well just call it an Albert). Why is that even needed? What prevents the ankle from doing that across two generations? Why can so many species IRL and in Sagan do that all the time, for everything from arboreal life to swimming to digging, but somehow this one joint can't?

QUOTE (colddigger @ Jan 31 2023, 02:34 AM)

I do actually have a whole rooster that I killed in my freezer that I could rip a wing off of and pull the bones out of and we can look at it, I actually looked at one of those and it was part of why I was confused about the discussion of twisting motion in bird wings prior when it seemed to have been claimed that they cannot move outside of a 2d plane beyond the shoulder..

As far as I can tell that is still the claim and the basis of the argument against the visorbill's ankle motion

Again you are doubling down on bad arguments: Not only does the flexibility of the wing joint in a carcass not indicative of the flexibility when it was alive, if we were to assume it does it would support a more flexible joint not less.

I've ignored it for the health of the conversation, but given the condensing name calling that's out of the window, and I should probably tackle at least one of the previously doubled down bad argument anyway:





False comparison, basically a strawman, but still wrong: man powered ornithopters were able to produce enough lift to push themselves, while people flapping wing extensions on their arms, often while jumping from high buildings, were... well, sacrifices for science. Given your Mark Sargent type influence here I'm going to just ask that anyone reading the convo to not try to do this.

Good point, the elbow is twisting into the curve as well. Kind of goes against your general argument .

The base of the toe is a new the wrist but the ankle is not a wrist?

Also if we're enforcing a rule against joints evolving to break away from their original plane, how would biats evolve to spread their wings in the first place? And given that nature breaks that rule in so many ways, what accuracy are we gaining by reinforcing such a rule?

You'd still need at least two breaking points twisitng downwards to create a curve, and the only avalible joints to do that are the hinge joints either the knee or the ankle would have to break the plane - most likely both.

Even if you choose not to do so, which is the likely outcome of this conversation, what's the problem with songsauce piper providing a transition for more flexible ankles? Evolving non magical flight skills should be at least as viable as the alternative.

QUOTE (colddigger @ Jan 31 2023, 01:12 AM)

"the placement of the toes barely allows any kind of curvature ..." I think I'm a little lost on this part. Having the kinds of joints listed as useful, I think that the base of the wing toe ought to have switched from a saddle joint to possibly a ball joint of some kind to allow for the greatest amount of mobility when needed. It kind of looks like that's the direction that the skeleton was going anyway.

I mean the toes are simply not enough to be able to do this:


Or this:


Or even this


If biats can't twist their ankles to bend their wings but can fly the way they are described too, how does that work?

1. Structural support:
The force is still distributed along the entire wing, but more of that wing is placed at the center of gravity along the sides of the body and held by the hip muscles, which is the equivalent of a building with stronger support, you don’t lose potential height by placing more of the weight of the building in its support, you gain it. . As for the size of the ankle, obviously it's going to grow along with the toes to support them.

2. Inertial force:
Yes, first of all, thank you for acknowledging the inertial force, this suggests progress in the conversation. There is absolutely a chance of tearing the grashof muscle due to inertial forces... But not as much of a chance as you have to tear your muscles when switching between the extremes of downward acceleration and upward acceleration during a bird's normal flap cycle. Still, the tensile strength of the grashof muscle would likely be the upper limit for what a visorbill can do without self-harm.

3. The plane-breaking ankle:
While I find the idea of biat descendants catching thermals like hawks & hunting like peregrine falcons without even twisting their ankle to curve the wing to be incredible, as in lacking believability, as the placement of the toes barely allows any kind of curvature and the gap between the imposed handicap and the described performance is just completely unrealistic. Even so, I know I can't prevent dorite from declaring that cannon for biats, and I can't stop others from accepting that without skepticism. Still, the songsauce piper provides plenty of room between the biat and the visorbill to allow for increasing the range of motion around the ankle and was well positioned to need to do so.

4. Evolutionary viability:
Yes, just like everything else, flight included, this too is unnecessary, and it actually required an evolutionary U-turn, transitioning through a species that prioritized agility over speed, rather than a straightforward adaptation towards speed. The only RL lineage that IMO had the potential to evolve this were microraptors, assuming they did fly with 4 wings (which I know is currently disputed). I would even say some of its adaptations would have made it easier; the base of the tail could have provided a fantastic attachment area for hind leg muscles, and shifting from walking on 3 toes to 2 toes would have probably been easier than 2 hooves to 1 hoof, not to mention close lens eyes to navigate with.Beyond that, there wasn't really a RL opportunity I know of to judge the viability of it, and a road not taken doesn't really prove the road isn't there, as anyone who's into spec evo should know.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Jan 30 2023, 11:03 AM)

Let me put this a different way. Picture you are wearing a pair of big costume wings that go on your arms like sleeves. Using the full strength of your arms, you can easily flap them and produce a decent gust of wind. Now imagine if instead of having the wings as sleeves, you are holding onto a handle at the base of them with your hands. You have a secure grip, and a rope or a rubber band is binding your elbows to your waist and preventing you from fully extending your arms. What do you think will happen when you try to flap the costume wings now? Hell, even without your elbows bound.

I'm sure you didn't intend too but you are basically describing the old bike plane prototypes from the turn of the century. Which while not quite good enough to compete with a propeller (which is also "flicked"), did do a much better job getting people off the ground than anyone trying to flap their arms.

The fact you've added "even without your elbows bound" without showing a sign of understanding how critical that difference would be concern me, and make me suspect that again my explanations have gone on deaf ears. Its like you are actively investing energy to resist learning at all cost, or holding onto a belief you have nothing to learn, and that is not a wall I know how to fly over.

I'm not sure what you are thinking of when you differentiate "theoretical speed vs strength", the force of impact against the air is the mass of the wing * acceleration regardless if you generate the acceleration through the biomechanical translation of muscles or steam or shoot a catapult at the end of a Rube Goldberg machine.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Jan 30 2023, 09:42 AM)

So it's flicking its ankle around to flap its wings?

I want to say yes because it's a funny and still viable way to put it, and because I'm tired, but I'm also apprehensive about agreeing in case I'm misinterpreting what you mean by that.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Jan 30 2023, 05:41 AM)

Could you label which parts are which in your animation? Because clearly we have to be looking at different things for that to be moving like a wrist or ankle and not twisting like a disc joint.

The color code is the same as listed in the diagram

QUOTE (colddigger @ Jan 30 2023, 05:07 AM)

It just seems to me that there's been two walls to get butted into here, the joint being the one here and now.

Maybe, or maybe not... it might be the confusion between the two issues causing a legitimate miscommunication.

The first question is what muscles are powering the motion, so going step by step:
The muscles at the base of the femur (the hip) provide the main force of the motion. The grashof muscle loop restricts that force into a circular motion and prevents it from breaking away at high acceleration, though the muscles at the base of the tibiotarsus (the knee) are needed to direct the motion into a full circular motion during the initial acceleration, resulting in the circular motion at the end of the tibiotarsus (The ankle).
So far the motion is happening entirely within a single plane, and the translation between the force provided by the femur and the acceleration of the circular motion at the base of the ankle is entirely mechanical.
Now we need physics: As the ankle speeds up, the kinetic energy trying to escape is pushing outwards towards the edge of the circle. Restricted from escaping by the limits imposed by the grashof loop, the energy continues the spin, pulling the tibiotarsus along with it, and the femur in turn. This allows the system to conserve most of its momentum and frees the femur muscles to focus on building up additional angular momentum, introducing additional energy into the system to accelerate it further (though still compensating for losses resulting from friction).
At this point, we break away from the 2D plane: Angular momentum is calculated as P*R, where P is the momentum and R is the radius. As we go further along the wing, the radius - the distance from the center of rotation - increases, while the momentum is maintained. This means that the further out you go while rotating at the same speed, the bigger the outward force becomes. In 3D, we can see this along the wing: As you go further out along the wing away from the body, the further out it can go and the larger the force pulling it away from the center of the circle. As a result, the circular motion at the base of the wing (the ankle) causes the circular flapping motion all the way down to the tip of the wing.

It's worth noting that so far, not a single calory has been used by the ankle muscles or any muscle past the knee. Sadly for our hypothetical ragdoll visorbill, the reality is not an abstract physics model, so IRL we'd need all the joint muscles attachments in place to be able to fine-tune and adapt to the situation, which leads us to the second question: Range of motion.
As the hip & knee motion is standard for any sauceback, so I think we can skip those and move to the ankle. Even within the CAD animation, the ankle's range of motion is almost 70 degrees, because my humor is 12. IRL, that wouldn't be entirely on the ankle, but also include the rotation of the tibiotarsus along its axis, not unlike what happens when we rotate our wrists or ankles, so even if you could argue that the ankle couldn't twist above 45 degrees (which is probably about what is needed for the ophrey at a minimum), the rotation of the tibiotarsus should provide plenty of room to compensate. the next 2 joints after the cannon are the toe joints, which I've restricted to 30 degrees in the CAD as it's showing a basic flapping pattern, though IRL would probably likewise need around 45 degrees to be able to properly maneuver.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Jan 30 2023, 03:51 AM)

Like, I am not saying the joints can't move at all. What you depicted is just very extreme and I'm having a hard time seeing how it's happening with the muscles set up the way they are without also making it impossible for them to stand and hop the way they are also described.

The ankle rotation is slightly less than 70 degrees. Place the elbow on your desk, look at your hand, now look at the back of your hand, your wrist has just rotated it more then 2.5 times the rotation of the visorbill's ankle. Your own ankles do that when doing the 'happy feet' dance move and your legs don't fly.

If its really done for accuracy, I do not think you have fully thought through the level of handicap you'd have to place on your species and the required level of revision you'd have do if you would seriously take this restriction as cannon for biat muscles. Not to mention the lack of good reason to do so in the first place, why would biats evolve to move so robotically? How did they evolve to fly with it? You are drastically sabotaging the plausibility of your own past submissions through a retcon that seemingly has no good reason to be there.

If its done for other reasons, I'm honestly fine with adding "despite angular momentum they cannot outpace ophreys due to Newton's 42nd law stating that a body in motion cannot exceed the velocity of forum politics" into the description. I do enjoy a good lampshade. Would that be satisfactory?

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Jan 30 2023, 03:21 AM)

I contacted evo and she says the ankle cannot bend in the way depicted in flying saucebacks.

Wait, so quail and ophreys really do all their descriptions claim they do with flat wings like insects? Catching thermals and out manuvering large pray without bending their wings? That is absolutely incredible, beyond belief. How do they acomplish such feats?

I am very impressed you were able to come up with alternative viable ways for them to do so, wish you would have saved me the trouble by including them in the descriptions in the first place, but better late then never. Can't wait to read the updated descirptions.

Fixed

added the animation to the description.

Updated the male neoteny description laying the grounds for what was talked about here, sent the wedding rink to the jeweler but got back a ring instead

And yep, they swallow just like all other saucebacks, though the convo has gotten me excited about alternative throat developments, they are not needed here.

I really like the sun-eyed phlock art, the coloration and head shape is fantastic.

But yes, as someone who has found one sided diagrams to be a confusing barrier in understanding some spec works (i.e. I am still not a 100% sure how to read Phatanum B skeletons), I can vouch for the need to include all limbs. Otherwise you could never be sure when someone's species entry has DarwinIV'd itself.

Also hello & welcome to all the new members

QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Jan 27 2023, 11:20 PM)

Axolotls are physiologically adults (i.e., can reproduce) in bodies which approximate the juvenile forms of their ancestors. While knowing how neoteny develops in Binucleozoa would be interesting, it's not necessary to elaborate on the mechanism. You can still do it, of course. It's possible the two cell lineages of Binucleozoa have been joined together for so long that they've experienced horizontal gene transfer between them, which might allow them to be receptive in some way to each other's hormones.

If we had the most closely related salamander that could still breed with axolotls, would their offspring be half-way neotenic, or would it be an on/off chromosomal trigger determining whether it will be neotenic? Perhaps it is triggered in some offspring's but not others?

With the future rockruisers/bobbysoxer hybrid lineage I am aiming for the latter, which might mean i need to go into details, at least in the meta to make sure the description's explanation don't contain anything that contradict it.

Plus, you know...it's fun. Admittedly whenever we go into details about systems that weren't elaborated on in the past there's a risk of retcon, so it does need some supervision, and making sure it doesn't contradict other instances of suaceback neoteny and the ideas of the artists who made them, like the swimming larva one, but this thread seems perfect for doing just that.

QUOTE (colddigger @ Jan 26 2023, 08:50 AM)

Oh that might make sense, larvae need hormonal triggers to develop their mature forms, and silenced responses exist. The syndrome you refer to may not be the best choice if you do use an example in a description, since it seems heavily associated with lacking sexual development as well if I read right about it.

I should probably prepare the grounds in the Rockruisers male neoteny description already.

Would I be able to rationalize that because of the need to regulate the mutual development of Binucleus Icosahedron & Binucleus Truncated Icosahedron tissues, Binucleozoa sexual development is regulated by a more intricate system of branching hormonal triggers rather than a single dominant hormone (like testosterone/estrogen), thus allowing the full development of gonads even in individuals afflicted by a condition that prevents the production of later developmental hormones further down the tree?

Does this make sense? Would this work well with the existing examples of Binucleozoa neoteny like the sauceback larva lineage?

I like the grainy paper, it kind of feels like parchment, and if it's the graininess which goes against the grain, how can that be anything but a pun too wonderful to not make manifest?

Regarding the songsauce pipers, I'm going to recommend adding them regardless of age, once the Ruddy grabs a Songsauce wing in its beak being a few centimeters larger wouldn't really stop an adult songsauce from going down and hitting the waters, its a good strategy and a decent meal, probably delicious too.

On the subject of autumn, is autumn the season for nuts on sagan? We have a lot of flora with nuts but I'm not clear on the seasonality, though autumn makes sense and seems to be the common case for earth.

(Information needed for a completely different nutty species concept)

I'd love to see a shepherd Harnessback pack, with the adults alongside the larva and the animals they ride.

Any sagan 4 forest in autumn, color changes, leaf litter, nuts, and all.

If a diorma is taking place in wallace, maybe a trail of trailblazers. Doesn't have to be upclose, can just be part of the background in the same way you might draw a trail of ants in a park or a forest

Edit: The eventful Day in which a a pack of shepherd Harnessbacks was roaming by the edge of a forest during autumn just as a trail of trailblazers passed by

QUOTE (colddigger @ Jan 10 2023, 07:07 AM)

I honestly wonder how such extreme dimorphism between the bull and neotenic males could remain viable during genetic mixing, you'd probably end up with scrawny bulls that never make it beyond their teenage development or something. What would the resultant females be, too? They seem sorta specialized enough that mixing could also result in a weaker hybrid. You could probably pull off your idea without hybridizing or mixing the species, just doing a more conventional R/P/S like what's found on earth. The bobbysoxer by itself could pull this off, and given the females lose their tusks you could make males that mimic females to infiltrate harems, monogamous weak tusked males, and harem forming strong tusked males your game. Giving them behaviors that woo the ladies, and also childrearing aid, would make this even better since that would mean the mimics can woo while in the harem, females would be happy with the weak tusk males that help with the kids, and the harem males are just... the usual.

what if the neotony wasn't as gradual of a process?

rather than favoring specific less and less developed males over time, what if it was more along the lines of growth-inhibiting genetic conditions like Kallmann syndrome becoming advantageous and spreading within the population? this way the male neoteny would be an on/off situation rather than a gradual one, maybe a matter of needing two growth-inhibiting chromosomes alongside male chromosomes.

this does create a space for decay and mutations in the bull-specific genetic sets which don't get manifested in the neotenic population. maybe I can use that instead of the hypothetical 3rd species? create a stable hybrid population as the monogamous ones and use that as the bridge species, made out of rockruisers that got impregnated by bobbysoxers giving birth to males with a non-neotenic chromosome but not having all the intact bull genes that a regular bobbysoxer bull would have gotten from his mother's side (or vise versa), thus living more like a female and taking advantage of that to more closely guard his partner.
over time they might have gained further advantages within that lifestyle, maybe using the "shoes" as flippers, or little rocky shell nubs that help the older larva grab the outside of the shell thus allowing males to aid in childcare

Would that be viable?

IMO though bipedal pole-vaulting is a much bigger issue, and where more disadvantages can likely be found. Comparing bipedal pole vaulting to pterosaurs is not even like comparing bipedalism to quadrupedalism in terms of running or walking (which would be bad enough), this is more like an Olympic pole vaulter using the pole as both a stilt to run on and a pole to jump on while shouting "look mommy, no legs!"