HOME | DD

Description
Chiropterans, otherwise known as "bats" in ancient times, are the only groups of "mammalians" that can fly. This is known because of some exquisite fossil finds that preserve a wing membrane stretched over their extra-long fingers, as well as certain other features of their anatomy that also point to powered flight. However, even among ancient mammalians that appear in popular media, depictions of bats are becoming increasingly out of date compared to what is known from current science. Most depictions of these fliers portray them as being excessively vicious, snatching up people and killing them habitually; what is now known from fossils, however, means this image has become largely discredited from a scientific standpoint.

Depicted above is a sketch of a typical "chiropteran" from popular media, along with errors typical of restoration and pop-culture depictions. Should a bat be represented in popular fiction in any way, there is a good chance of having at least one of the errors shown in the list below.
- Bat anatomy is so different from other "mammals" that it is hard to classify where they originated from in the family tree. This has led to media referring to them as "flying rats" or "flying mice", presumably due to similarities in skull shape to the rodent family. This is in fact a myth in itself, since even in the fossil the skull shapes are drastically different; the myth most likely originated from the fact that rodents were used as a wastebasket taxon for any small mammals in general during the early years of mammal paleontology. Detailed fossil analysis indicates, however, that the closest relatives of the bat family are the shrews, along with other insectivores such as moles and hedgehogs.
- Analysis of exceptionally preserved fossils does indicate that the wings of bats are indeed membranous and made of skin, this does not mean they are so fragile and delicate that they will tear just by touching a twig. Skin membranes do tear easily, but a bat's wing needs to be strong enough to withstand the airflow of flight. The wing skin of bats was actually highly elastic, allowing it to flex and change shape according to airflow. On a similar note, bat wings should have rounded tips to relatively flexible fingers, rather than stiffened claw-like points.
- Bats are almost always portrayed as being even more incompetent on the ground than in the air regardless of species. This may be true for some species which have relatively weak hind limbs and must have been more comfortable hanging from tree branches. However, bat forelimbs were powerful - they needed to be to enable powered flight - and bats could have used their forelimbs to move upon the ground. Limb analysis of one fossil find indicates that in that species at least, the limbs were strong enough to have enabled quadrupedal movement and even takeoff from a level surface.
- Any bat in popular media will almost always seize things with its hind feet and carry them off like birds of prey. Not one bat has been found with prehensile feet with grasping digits, but the "Fishing Bat" fossil does shows that the creature had gaffed a fish using enlarged claws on its hind feet. Distortion of the fossil led early paleontologists to believe that all bats had opposable toes, but we now know from later better-preserved fossil finds that the Fishing Bat species was a specialized exception to the general rule: most bats had weak hind limbs and small, hook-like feet, better suited for hanging vertically than grasping prey.
- Like other mammals, bats are always portrayed as being scaly, wiry, hideous-looking monstrosities. Well-preserved lake-bed fossil finds show that like other mammals, they had a fur of some sort. Soft tissues have also been preserved in this way, showing presence of external ears and nose flaps, which are absent in media portrayals. Likewise, bats are always shown with exposed teeth that remain visible when the mouth is closed, but nerve and vessel pores on their skulls show that they most likely had some form of lips in life.
- Because of similarities to close relatives that were thought to be predatory, bats were once assumed to be predatory as well. Every portrayal of bats in media has since portrayed them as flying killers that attack people and eat meat. At least one portrayal even went far enough as to depict them as attacking in swarms, gnawing through the flesh of their victims and leaving nothing but bones. Bat skulls and jaws are in fact too delicate for this lifestyle, and their jaws cannot open wide enough to bite off chunks of flesh. Stomach contents from well-preserved fossils indicate that many of the smaller species primarily ate insects, though some species have also been found with small vertebrates within their body cavities, and the stomachs of some larger fossils meanwhile have been found to contain primarily pollen and seeds. Not one bat has been found to have attacked or eaten anything larger than itself, so it is likely that they would have been harmless to larger creatures. On a similar note, some portrayals show "saber-toothed bats" biting victims and sucking blood in a similar manner to the above, since one unusual specimen was speculated at one point to have consumed blood in life, biting into other animals to do so. The claim stemmed entirely from a supposed elongated fang which later turned out to be a wing bone, and the fossil itself is too damaged for this theory to be verified.

(Note: This is not for the All Yesterdays contest which ended a few days ago. This is just for fun.)

Description
Chiropterans, otherwise known as "bats" in ancient times, are the only groups of "mammalians" that can fly. This is known because of some exquisite fossil finds that preserve a wing membrane stretched over their extra-long fingers, as well as certain other features of their anatomy that also point to powered flight. However, even among ancient mammalians that appear in popular media, depictions of bats are becoming increasingly out of date compared to what is known from current science. Most depictions of these fliers portray them as being excessively vicious, snatching up people and killing them habitually; what is now known from fossils, however, means this image has become largely discredited from a scientific standpoint.

Depicted above is a sketch of a typical "chiropteran" from popular media, along with errors typical of restoration and pop-culture depictions. Should a bat be represented in popular fiction in any way, there is a good chance of having at least one of the errors shown in the list below.
- Bat anatomy is so different from other "mammals" that it is hard to classify where they originated from in the family tree. This has led to media referring to them as "flying rats" or "flying mice", presumably due to similarities in skull shape to the rodent family. This is in fact a myth in itself, since even in the fossil the skull shapes are drastically different; the myth most likely originated from the fact that rodents were used as a wastebasket taxon for any small mammals in general during the early years of mammal paleontology. Detailed fossil analysis indicates, however, that the closest relatives of the bat family are the shrews, along with other insectivores such as moles and hedgehogs.
- Analysis of exceptionally preserved fossils does indicate that the wings of bats are indeed membranous and made of skin, this does not mean they are so fragile and delicate that they will tear just by touching a twig. Skin membranes do tear easily, but a bat's wing needs to be strong enough to withstand the airflow of flight. The wing skin of bats was actually highly elastic, allowing it to flex and change shape according to airflow. On a similar note, bat wings should have rounded tips to relatively flexible fingers, rather than stiffened claw-like points.
- Bats are almost always portrayed as being even more incompetent on the ground than in the air regardless of species. This may be true for some species which have relatively weak hind limbs and must have been more comfortable hanging from tree branches. However, bat forelimbs were powerful - they needed to be to enable powered flight - and bats could have used their forelimbs to move upon the ground. Limb analysis of one fossil find indicates that in that species at least, the limbs were strong enough to have enabled quadrupedal movement and even takeoff from a level surface.
- Any bat in popular media will almost always seize things with its hind feet and carry them off like birds of prey. Not one bat has been found with prehensile feet with grasping digits, but the "Fishing Bat" fossil does shows that the creature had gaffed a fish using enlarged claws on its hind feet. Distortion of the fossil led early paleontologists to believe that all bats had opposable toes, but we now know from later better-preserved fossil finds that the Fishing Bat species was a specialized exception to the general rule: most bats had weak hind limbs and small, hook-like feet, better suited for hanging vertically than grasping prey.
- Like other mammals, bats are always portrayed as being scaly, wiry, hideous-looking monstrosities. Well-preserved lake-bed fossil finds show that like other mammals, they had a fur of some sort. Soft tissues have also been preserved in this way, showing presence of external ears and nose flaps, which are absent in media portrayals. Likewise, bats are always shown with exposed teeth that remain visible when the mouth is closed, but nerve and vessel pores on their skulls show that they most likely had some form of lips in life.
- Because of similarities to close relatives that were thought to be predatory, bats were once assumed to be predatory as well. Every portrayal of bats in media has since portrayed them as flying killers that attack people and eat meat. At least one portrayal even went far enough as to depict them as attacking in swarms, gnawing through the flesh of their victims and leaving nothing but bones. Bat skulls and jaws are in fact too delicate for this lifestyle, and their jaws cannot open wide enough to bite off chunks of flesh. Stomach contents from well-preserved fossils indicate that many of the smaller species primarily ate insects, though some species have also been found with small vertebrates within their body cavities, and the stomachs of some larger fossils meanwhile have been found to contain primarily pollen and seeds. Not one bat has been found to have attacked or eaten anything larger than itself, so it is likely that they would have been harmless to larger creatures. On a similar note, some portrayals show "saber-toothed bats" biting victims and sucking blood in a similar manner to the above, since one unusual specimen was speculated at one point to have consumed blood in life, biting into other animals to do so. The claim stemmed entirely from a supposed elongated fang which later turned out to be a wing bone, and the fossil itself is too damaged for this theory to be verified.

(Note: This is not for the All Yesterdays contest which ended a few days ago. This is just for fun.)