How big are the fruiting bodies? I'd include that in the size slot.

I made so many saucebacks for the sky and now I'm making so many saucebacks for the dirt...

We had a thread about spondylozoan hip weirdness, the gist of it is that they seem to have ancestrally had hind shoulders and backwards knees instead of normal pelvises...and then a whole bunch protruded their hind shoulders to make pseudo-femurs independently, presumably because that arrangement of limb is better for pushing. But not all of them, and classic species are dependent on the ancestral arrangement so it can't be retconned.

Oh yeah, we were just discussing elaborating spondylozoa skeletal anatomy in the sauceback group chat. In particular, the hips wouldn't look anything like that.

Technically the sauce only represents the location of the braincase, not necessarily the size, but yeah, the saucege probably isn't very smart.

There should be patagia muscles in biats, in general. As they are for moving skin rather than actually concerning the motion of the bones themselves, they are excluded in the musculoskeletal diagrams. Many bird diagrams also exclude the patagia muscles, but I chose one that includes them for the sake of making sure it was a complete one.

QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Feb 3 2023, 09:55 PM)

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Feb 4 2023, 03:02 AM) QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Feb 3 2023, 08:47 PM) While I am still cautious with how well I'm interpreting the information, "have nothing to do with the ankle joint" is almost certainly false: QUOTE Eight modelled ostrich limb muscles also show this pattern: the AMB1, AMB2, IC, ITCa, ITCp, ITM, ITCR and ISF exhibit stabilization function in flexion-extension (Figs. 9 and 10). Weaker evidence for self-stabilization is present for the OM muscle in hip ab/adduction (Fig. 14) and the four ankle flexors in flexion/extension (TCf, TCt, EDL, and FL; Fig. 18), so any self-stabilization properties must be interpreted as being largely restricted to the hip’s flexion-extension function (see also Table 4). QUOTE Ankle musculature displays fairly congruent patterns in our model and S.E.A. and B.A.S.’s data (Figs. 18 and 19). The TCf and TCt heads generally have an ankle extensor action, like the EDL muscle group does, albeit with some switches to extensor action with extreme (dorsi)flexion in the B.A.S. dataset (and our TCf). Surprisingly, ankle extensors reveal more variation: our FDL’s ankle extensor moment arm is almost twice as large of that in the S.E.A. and B.A.S. data, showing little change with ankle posture, whereas the B.A.S. dataset exhibited a decreased moment arm with flexion. Our other digital flexor muscles (FPD3, FPD4) and those of S.E.A. display roughly similar values but opposite trends, increasing their moment arms with ankle flexion in our model. Our FL muscle’s extensor moment arm is smaller than those of S.E.A. and B.A.S. The model of B.A.S. had a M. fibularis brevis (FB) muscle (Fig. 18), which is reduced to a ligament in Struthio and thus not included in our model; no studies have data for the ligamentous M. plantaris (Zinoviev, 2006). The extensor moment arms for our gastrocnemius muscles are all identical and fairly constant with ankle flexion, whereas the curves for the data of S.E.A. and B.A.S. increased steadily and tended to be larger (Fig. 19). Source: https://nmbl.stanford.edu/publications/pdf/...chinson2015.pdf Not to mention, what's the point on insisting on a joint that wouldn't allow a sauceback to survive a mild kick from the side or to stumble over a rock? You can't reasonably argue against the need to withstand lateral forces and then have it push against air resistance in the same breath, that's absurd. That first paragraph appears to be saying, in layman's terms, "the evidence that these might stabilize the ankle is very weak, stabilization is probably restricted to the hip region". The hip can move laterally in both birds and saucebacks, and is also what you use to move your leg to catch yourself when you stumble or get kicked from the side. The second paragraph has nothing to do with lateralmotion of the ankle joint. Not quite. The 2nd paragraph looks like its saying that the specific ankle muscles maintain their tension on the ankle throughout the walking stance regardless of pose pulling underneath the ankle from both sides consistently throughout the step, so a slightly more thorough reading of the 1st paragraph is "we do have evidence for stabilization in the knee muscles but we acknowledge that it isn't as strong or clear cut as the evidance for stabilization from the hip muscles". And before you conclude that gives you enough leeway to leave the biat ankle without any muscles for withstanding lateral forces, that's still not viable once you are using those limbs to withstand air resistance during flight.

Can you quote specific parts that say what you claim and translate them to layman's terms to prove that's what it says? Because to me it just looks like you're reading whatever you want into that and either assuming none of us understand it well enough to disprove it, or you yourself really believe that's what it says, and I think we need to break it down to find out which one it is.

Also, if biats need to have a side to side stabilizing muscle for their albert joint in order to keep it stable in flight, where, exactly, is the side-to-side elbow stabilizer muscle or tendon on this bird wing diagram?



As, much like the heel, a bird's elbow is also a hinge with literal solid bone flanges to keep it from moving side to side.

QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Feb 3 2023, 08:47 PM)

While I am still cautious with how well I'm interpreting the information, "have nothing to do with the ankle joint" is almost certainly false: QUOTE Eight modelled ostrich limb muscles also show this pattern: the AMB1, AMB2, IC, ITCa, ITCp, ITM, ITCR and ISF exhibit stabilization function in flexion-extension (Figs. 9 and 10). Weaker evidence for self-stabilization is present for the OM muscle in hip ab/adduction (Fig. 14) and the four ankle flexors in flexion/extension (TCf, TCt, EDL, and FL; Fig. 18), so any self-stabilization properties must be interpreted as being largely restricted to the hip’s flexion-extension function (see also Table 4). QUOTE Ankle musculature displays fairly congruent patterns in our model and S.E.A. and B.A.S.’s data (Figs. 18 and 19). The TCf and TCt heads generally have an ankle extensor action, like the EDL muscle group does, albeit with some switches to extensor action with extreme (dorsi)flexion in the B.A.S. dataset (and our TCf). Surprisingly, ankle extensors reveal more variation: our FDL’s ankle extensor moment arm is almost twice as large of that in the S.E.A. and B.A.S. data, showing little change with ankle posture, whereas the B.A.S. dataset exhibited a decreased moment arm with flexion. Our other digital flexor muscles (FPD3, FPD4) and those of S.E.A. display roughly similar values but opposite trends, increasing their moment arms with ankle flexion in our model. Our FL muscle’s extensor moment arm is smaller than those of S.E.A. and B.A.S. The model of B.A.S. had a M. fibularis brevis (FB) muscle (Fig. 18), which is reduced to a ligament in Struthio and thus not included in our model; no studies have data for the ligamentous M. plantaris (Zinoviev, 2006). The extensor moment arms for our gastrocnemius muscles are all identical and fairly constant with ankle flexion, whereas the curves for the data of S.E.A. and B.A.S. increased steadily and tended to be larger (Fig. 19). Source: https://nmbl.stanford.edu/publications/pdf/...chinson2015.pdf Not to mention, what's the point on insisting on a joint that wouldn't allow a sauceback to survive a mild kick from the side or to stumble over a rock? You can't reasonably argue against the need to withstand lateral forces and then have it push against air resistance in the same breath, that's absurd.

That first paragraph appears to be saying, in layman's terms, "the evidence that these might stabilize the ankle is very weak, stabilization is probably restricted to the hip region". The hip can move laterally in both birds and saucebacks, and is also what you use to move your leg to catch yourself when you stumble or get kicked from the side.

The second paragraph has nothing to do with lateral motion of the ankle joint.

QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Feb 3 2023, 08:06 PM)

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Feb 4 2023, 01:37 AM) QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Feb 3 2023, 06:57 PM) I could be misinterpreting this, but it looks like ostriches manage the differences between two muscle set along the inner ankle (TCf &  TCt) to stabilize it, as their simulated exertion stays consistent regardless of running phase. Given the comparison to a birds elbow of a wing, looking at hawk wing muscles they seem similarly have opposing muscle sets that are able to do the same thing, such as the BR muscle and SU. Alternatively, given the horse like hock shape of the albert bone, it should need a deep digital flexor.  The reason I knew to look for those is simply that bird joints don't form mechanical locks - meaning if they weren't opposing side to side forces they'd wobble until the tendons are in maximum stretch, if not outright flailing. It doesn't matter which critter you compare it too, there has to be something, not having any forces that can provide lateral balance just doesn't make mechanical sense, even if the skeleton worked in a simulated vacuum, and it doesn't, they have to be able to counter outside forces. What would happen if one side was impacted by a force the other side wasn't, like let's say, air resistance? There have to be variable lateral forces. As for the extreme coincidence of them growing in the same time as an increased range of motion, that’s just as coincidental as the fact we build up the very same muscles we use, that's how gyms take our moneyz. Mechanical locks like flanges that physically restrict the joint from bending any other way, which is what makes it a hinge joint by definition? Are we even looking at the same bones? They don't need muscles to constantly adjust precisely because they literally do have mechanical locks! And so do sauceback bones! And ostriches don't even have any muscles below the ankle! Point to me where there is a muscle in a bird heel that does that work that can be done by the bone flanges that they literally have with far less energy. The tibialis cranialis caput tibiale (TCT) & the tibialis cranialis caput femorale (TCF) are located on the shin bone but pull tandons that extend to two sides of the inner ankle allowing them to create lateral balance. The sides of a hinge joints provide support but don't form a lock, on their own the curves would still allow a range of motion that the muscles and tendons would need to restrain, not to mention the need to provide variable lateral support on their own when it comes to resisting outside forces, which would be needed for anything that adapted its limbs to fly inside an atmosphere.

Those are pulling on the foot bones aka moving the toes and have nothing to do with stabilizing the ankle joint?

QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Feb 3 2023, 06:57 PM)

I could be misinterpreting this, but it looks like ostriches manage the differences between two muscle set along the inner ankle (TCf &  TCt) to stabilize it, as their simulated exertion stays consistent regardless of running phase. Given the comparison to a birds elbow of a wing, looking at hawk wing muscles they seem similarly have opposing muscle sets that are able to do the same thing, such as the BR muscle and SU. Alternatively, given the horse like hock shape of the albert bone, it should need a deep digital flexor.  The reason I knew to look for those is simply that bird joints don't form mechanical locks - meaning if they weren't opposing side to side forces they'd wobble until the tendons are in maximum stretch, if not outright flailing. It doesn't matter which critter you compare it too, there has to be something, not having any forces that can provide lateral balance just doesn't make mechanical sense, even if the skeleton worked in a simulated vacuum, and it doesn't, they have to be able to counter outside forces. What would happen if one side was impacted by a force the other side wasn't, like let's say, air resistance? There have to be variable lateral forces. As for the extreme coincidence of them growing in the same time as an increased range of motion, that’s just as coincidental as the fact we build up the very same muscles we use, that's how gyms take our moneyz.

Mechanical locks like flanges that physically restrict the joint from bending any other way, which is what makes it a hinge joint by definition? Are we even looking at the same bones? They don't need muscles to constantly adjust precisely because they literally do have mechanical locks! And so do sauceback bones!

And ostriches don't even have any muscles below the ankle!

Point to me where there is a muscle in a bird heel that does that work that can be done by the bone flanges that they literally have with far less energy.

To clarify, the way that saucebacks use their Albert joint is why they can't just evolve to bend sideways out of nowhere. As obligate bipeds which have been digitigrade and cursorial for hundreds of millions of years, their Albert joints, if they could ever bend side to side at all, would have lost that ability long ago to keep them stable while running for the same reason that knees do not typically bend side to side, with all adjustments happening at the toes instead. Bird legs also work this way and have relatively similar musculature lacking anything to move their "ankles" (which, similarly, are not actually true ankles) side to side. A bird's heel, and a sauceback's Albert joint, can therefore be considered analogous as far as evolving new flexibility goes.

In both cases, the sudden transformation of the joint into a saddle would cause the creature, bird or sauceback, to fall over because the muscles to adjust for the side-side wobble do not exist. If the muscles appeared out of nowhere beforehand, it would restrict the creature's ability to use the joint effectively. The chances of both appearing at the same time in the same individual are so low that I'd consider them practically impossible. You're not gonna get any side to side flexibility in the joint unless you dramatically change how your organism moves to no longer be affected by either problem, which I find to be a very unlikely path for this lineage, which is paralleling the evolution of perching birds. Maybe if they take a detour through sprawling as an aquatic adaptation, they might be able to get there.

You'd need to come up with a new perching mechanism though, as the tendon-based method birds use only works because the heel is a hinge joint.

@colddigger are you still intending to add an illustration of the larva?

If the discussion is gonna continue for another 12 pages it isn't worth it. We need to finish the generation and get the next one opened for the newbies.

Approval checklists should not be done on species before they have any comments

I asked for the discussion to be moved because continuing it in a rejected species thread would be confusing to others.

Approval Checklist:
Art:
Art Present?: y
Art clear?: y
Gen number?: y
All limbs shown?: y
Reasonably Comparable to Ancestor?: y
Realistic additions?: y

Name:
Binomial Taxonomic Name?: y
Creator?: y

Ancestor:
Listed?: y
What changes?:

• External?: Light sensors, coloration
• Internal?: Sexual reproduction,
• Behavioral/Mental?:

Are Changes Realistic?: y
New Genus Needed?: n

Habitat:
Type?: 3/3 (temperate, subtropical, and tropical)
Flavor?: 1/3 (coast)
Connected?: y
Wildcard?: n/a

Size:
Same as Ancestor?: n
Within range?: y
Exception?: n/a

Support:
Same as Ancestor?: n/a
Does It Fit Habitat?: n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a

Diet:
Same as Ancestor?: y (but actually listed)
Transition Rule?: n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a

Respiration:
Same as Ancestor?: n/a
Does It Fit Habitat?: n/a
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a

Thermoregulation:
Same as Ancestor?: y (elaborated)
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: n/a
Other?: n/a

Reproduction:
Same as Ancestor?: n
Does It Fit Habitat?: y
Reasonable changes (if any)?: sexual now
Other?: n/a

Description:
Length?: y
Capitalized correctly?: y
Replace/Split from ancestor?: split
Other?: n/a

Status: Approved

The matter of how to make the joint work the way you want is better for a sagan 4 science thread than a graveyarded rejected species thread. Especially as it's easier to find later that way.

Please take this discussion to a new thread.

Another

"Topmast Fuzzpalm" should be "Topship Fuzzpalm"

"It will futily attempt to slow its descent by flapping its leaves." If it's futile, why do it?

i like it but we should wait for @MNIDJM to give input

Are you implying that you think if you relaxed all your muscles, your elbows could bend perpendicular to the joint without breaking something such as the connective tissue that keeps it within the solid bone tracks that make it roll as a hinge in the first place?

QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Jan 30 2023, 11:48 PM)

On the wiki, the Migrating Capispine is listed as extinct. Was it marked as extinct erroneously, because its habitat wasn't actually lost? I think "favorite food" is reasonably formal.

Just not updated yet. It's an indirect resurrection from one of the retro species, and the means by which it survived are also described here in mystery capiri.

At least the hip was already a ball socket. You're talking about changes that fundamentally change how the joints behave, which requires new muscles and constraints entirely to make them not instantly crumple. If "Albert" as we're apparently calling it now just gains new side-side movement one day with no support, even if it's just slight, suddenly your sauceback has wobbly feet and can't keep its balance because it's physically unable to compensate for the shifting.