@Coolsteph is this to your liking now?

@Hydromancerx did you see the above comment?

@Coolsteph, is this to your liking now?

Wait, have you been making the assumption this whole time that flying saucebacks twist the pseudo-digitigrade ankle equivalent and not the true ankle and wing toe to adjust in flight? You know the "raised heel" is basically filling the role of the elbow, right?

I also don't understand why this is necessary at all. I'm pretty sure there's a swift-like pterosaur that just has short arms and a really long wing finger, and just like saucebacks, they walk on their wings.

So you think that you could flap a big costume wing held with just your hand with the same level of strength as if you were wearing it as a sleeve, as long as your elbows are tied to your waist, and problems like all that force being applied to your little saddle joint wrist instead of distributed along your entire arm just don't exist? Nevermind that you're also trying to move the entire wing with just the rotation of your hand, the resistance from inertia potentially being enough to literally tear the thing binding your elbow and/or literally break your arms before it budges?

When you use your entire arm, you have a lot more leverage to overcome the inertia of the wing AND you are using your strong upper arms with their strong sturdy ball socket shoulder joints to do it. Your wrist would be destroyed trying to do that, especially repeatedly.

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 have a hard time imagining the indirect up and down motion created from flicking it being as strong as just using the chest muscles to move the entire wing directly, like actual swifts and hobbies and hummingbirds and literally every other bird do. Theoretical speed without strength behind it to actually get through wind resistance will not get it off the ground.

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

I thought we were elaborating ancestral microlungs.

Either way, the spiracles are fine but the specifics should be vague.

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.

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.

I guess more specifically I have to ask, what muscles from the ancestral anatomy are being pulled on to make the joints twist in the way they are in your diagram?




While the diagrams were made for ophreys, the general setup applies to all flying saucebacks.

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

Looking over it,

"The larva-like male will stay in its mothers nest-shell until given to a new female, where it will use its claws to climb down the female's plumage, holding onto rough ridges around her cloaca and pushing its entire body inwards, leaving out only its respiratory spiracles & making its way back to its mother's neck or passed between females, depending on the social circumstances and available mating opportunities in the outcrop."

It feels like there's something missing between what I assume is describing how they mate and then returning to their mother.

QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Nov 29 2022, 10:21 PM)

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?: Hook beak, Enlarged fin rays in wings for gliding, Internal?: Larvae incorporates dietary toxins Behavioral/Mental?: Bobbing drowning of prey Are Changes Realistic?: y New Genus Needed?: (If yes, list why) Habitat: Type?: 1 Flavor?: 3 Connected?: Wildcard?: Size: Same as Ancestor?:n Within range?:y Exception?: Support: Same as Ancestor?:y Does It Fit Habitat?:n/a Reasonable changes (if any)?: Other?: Diet: Same as Ancestor?:n Transition Rule?:y Reasonable changes (if any)?:y Respiration: Same as Ancestor?:y Does It Fit Habitat?:y Reasonable changes (if any)?: Other?: Thermoregulation: Same as Ancestor?:y Does It Fit Habitat?:y Reasonable changes (if any)?: Other?: Reproduction: Same as Ancestor?:y Does It Fit Habitat?:y Reasonable changes (if any)?: Other?: Description: Length?: good Capitalized correctly?: needs work, but easy to fix. Replace/Split from ancestor?: split Other?: Capitalization of Proper Nouns.  Ruddy Hawklette, Toxiglobes, Stinkers, etc. Opinion: Approved.

Seconded approval.

@TheBigDeepCheatsy is it good to go now?

@colddigger you did the checklist on this before the above discussion, what's the status of your approval opinion now?

Does anyone have further comments? Before I do the checklist

@MNIDJM are seafloor regions split up yet?

Are there any further comments on this? I'm gonna ignore the first approval bc a species should never be marked approved before there have been any comments, and there was a whole discussion afterwards.

@Coolsteph do you have any comments on this?

Seconded approval.

Seconded.

Anyone have further comments on this?