HOME | DD
Eurwentala — Dinosaur Itch
Published: 2010-04-12 15:01:44 +0000 UTC; Views: 5313; Favourites: 184; Downloads: 33
Redirect to original
Description
I have always imagined compsognathids as quite mammal-like. When I saw this ([link] ) photo by Thrumyeye, my first thought was that the pose would look good on Compsognathus. So here it is.
I've been very busy lately, and this was one more of those therapeutic theropods done on breaks.
Related content
Comments: 26
This made me giggle. And I love those feathers. Cute job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Cute. Although a Compy would look more like a bird doing that, if you ask me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I SO thought of a fox with this job before i went to see the ref 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good job.
But in my opinion theropods weren't able to rise their indlimbs to that pose.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They couldn't? I haven't heard that. Birds can do it, and I think that non-avian theropods were, if anything, more flexible than birds.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, non avian pelvis is pretty different by avian pelvis (especially the Ischium). I don't think that the hindlimb was able to rise the knee above the back.
Moreover, non avian theropods had hands on their forelimbs, in my opinion bipedal dinosaurs used their hands to scratch their heads...
Anyway, this is only my opinion, I respect your point of view.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
You might be right about it: the pelvis is pretty different at least in these non-maniraptoran theropods. Though I'm not enough of an anatomist to know what it means for the flexibility of the hindlimbs.
Generally I'm a bit sceptical about people saying that some prehistoric animal couldn't do this or that, or if it could, it probably wouldn't. Of course clearly impossible poses are, well, impossible, but I'm talking about going to the limits of an animal's flexibility. At least modern animals can often stretch themselves to unbelievable poses and routinely do so, even if there seemingly would be a more comfortable option.
I thought about the scratching with hands, too. Sinosauropteryx and it's kin probably had well-functioning arms that they used for these purposes, but they're quite short. It would have been quite awkward to scratch the back of their neck with those tiny hands.
As a modern example I've been watching rats to clean and scratch themselves. They have good, but short arms that they do use a lot, but they also use both the hindlimbs and the tongue, even teeth. So, if a prehistoric animal has one body part suitable for doing something doesn't mean it always used just and only that body part.
Hope this cleared my thoughts.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Generally I'm a bit sceptical about people saying that some prehistoric animal couldn't do this or that, or if it could, it probably wouldn't. Of course clearly impossible poses are, well, impossible, but I'm talking about going to the limits of an animal's flexibility.
Of course, we cannot be sure about these things. So I agree.
But my main "concerns" are about the nearly extreme extension of muscles such as the femoral biceps or the caudalmost part of the quadriceps. These muscles are attached to the ischium, so if a theropod rises its knee enough to scratch its head, the muscles I mentioned are very stretched. Without considering the many small inner muscles.
Well, I'm not saying that theropods weren't able to scratch their heads with their feets "at all" (even some humans are contortionists after all!); I'm saying "why a dinosaur should toil to scratch its head with its foot, when it can scratch pretty easily with the hand?".
Infact you mention Rats, but Rats are mammals: their pelvis is very different, and above all they have no lumbar ribs. This means that their torso is more flexible than that of a Theropod, whose ribs run from its head to its hindlimbs.
Moreover, even with short arms, is easier for a theropod to lower its head to its "hands level", than to flex half of its body to reach its feet.
Last but not least, Rats are quadrupeds, theropods are bipedals: for a bipedal scratching its head with a foot it's a pretty complicate act. To do such a scratch they must expose themselves to dangers, because their balance become precarious, if they scratch standing; or they must sit and scratch, and a sitting bipedal is pretty slow if it must run off suddenly...
Anyway, I repeat: you're not "wrong at all", simply I think that is more likely that theropods scratched their heads with their hands and not with their feet.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the good answer. Basically, I agree with you: it's more likely that theropods used hands for scratching at least more than they used feet.
My example of rats was not to compare these very different animals directly, but to show that there's an animal that has an easy and logical way to scratch itself, and still it also uses all the other limbs and teeth and tongue for the same thing. Even in the places it could easily reach with hands. It's to say that animal behaviour is diverse and does not always seem logical.
Though I don't see why a bipedal animal exposes itself to more danger by sitting down and scratching with a hindlimb than by sitting and scratching with forelimbs. In both occasions, they are sitting down and not looking around, but can just as quickly jump up. Again, an example from the rats who definitely should be afraid of predators. I've watched them to sit on their butts and tails, with both forelimbs and one hindlimb in the air. They're holding the hindlimb with both hands and licking it. That's definitely not a pose for an animal in constant danger, and still they do it.
But yes - I agree with you in that hand-scratching was probably more common and easier to do, especially so if foot-scratching required some extreme stretching of the muscles. I still don't think that any compsognathid ever didn't even once use the hindlimb for scratching, and thus I can draw it even if it was uncommon. I might try a more normal pose next time, though.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Though I don't see why a bipedal animal exposes itself to more danger by sitting down and scratching with a hindlimb than by sitting and scratching with forelimbs.
Because if you scratch with your hand you don't need to sit...
That's definitely not a pose for an animal in constant danger, and still they do it.
Were they pets? If so, their behaviours are a little differend from those of "free" animals.
But again: it is likely that an animal does something "strange" if it feels safe.
By the way... if you whant to make another theropod scratching with its foot, may I suggest you to lower its head so that its leg will be in a more natural pose?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Because if you scratch with your hand you don't need to sit... "
Of course, but have you seen a tetrapod that never sits or lies down? Since I haven't, at least.
But yes, this kind of behaviour probably only occurs when the animal feels safe. The rats were pets, that's true, so they probably felt quite safe. But I've seen quite similar crazy preening poses in wild birds, for example. They probably feel quite well-guarded surrounded by their flock. For example, here's one scratching with it's leg: [link] This one, in the other hand, is definitely not being alert: [link]
Hey, just a thought: could a non-avian theropod actually flex it's neck to a similar twist as the duck in the last picture? It sure doesn't look natural.
If I come around drawing a scratching theropod again, I will think about the leg better.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Hey, just a thought: could a non-avian theropod actually flex it's neck to a similar twist as the duck in the last picture? It sure doesn't look natural.
It depends by neck lenght, by centra configuration, by cervical ribs level of overlap... in other words, it depends by which genus of non avian theropod we are talking about: an Ornithomimidae? Maybe this was able to flex that way. A Tyrannosauridae? It wasn't able for sure.
Birds are a very specialized kind of theropods and their necks are very flexible.
By the way, I'm remembering that I drawed a theropod scratching with its foot, in the second book of my "Dinosaurs" series. It was an Archaeopteryx.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's something undeniably cute about a ginger dinosaur.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hmmm taht is realy good work and good idea with pose of real animal
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why? If I'm not very badly mistaken, you are a mammal.
But thanks. I think it's a good way to get prehistoric animals look alive. After all, they did all the thing modern animals do, including scratching themselves, preening, sleeping, yawning, tripping over and so on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'm sure I've seen birds do this too, anyway
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes. I know... or maybe? 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0