HOME | DD
Sphenacodon β Proterix loomisi
Published: 2008-04-22 07:03:03 +0000 UTC; Views: 5167; Favourites: 34; Downloads: 191
Redirect to original
Description
A quick pic of Proterix loomisi, the prehistoric burrowing hedgehog that lacked prickles and likely lacked legs as well. Regrettably, I wasn't able to dig up enough papers on the subject. Any more would be welcome!
As I've always said, let me know if a) it's accurate and b) I'm doing it correctly on Photoshop. I think this time around I lost a lot of details in resizing it for upload. Oh well.
Related content
Comments: 54
Would Proterix Loomisi have dug sort of like this? [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
That is just adorable, and, if Proterix was legless, looks perfectly reasonable.
π: 0 β©: 1
*fighting my way up through the murky past*
Yes, fossorial mammals in general are adorable.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's the nose and the beady little eyes.
π: 0 β©: 1
the armored head looks not unlike a Pink Fairy Armadillo
π: 0 β©: 1
Yup, I based it on that animal. They probably had similar lifestyles.
π: 0 β©: 0
I like the impressionist effect.
Stupid question, how did it move? Snakelike?
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks!
Nope. Reptile spines flex in the horizontal plane, while mammalian spines flex in the vertical plane - hence, up-and-down, more like an inchworm than a snake. That said, the lack of legs remains controversial, and no mammal seems to have been able to maintain limbless locomotion...
π: 0 β©: 2
Ah, never thought of the direction of the spine bit.
But things would get boring if there were no controversy, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
That's why scientists generally agree to disagree.
π: 0 β©: 1
If only the rest of the world could go that route
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh WOW, I've learned something completely new. A (potentially) legless mammal?! That's amazing, like a mammalian worm! How odd that no modern warm-blooded burrower is quite that adapted.
π: 0 β©: 2
More like a mammalian caecilian or snake actually.
π: 0 β©: 0
It would appear that a warm-blooded physiology cannot sustain snakelike movement, which is why Proterix's lack of legs remains controversial. But it's still amazing.
π: 0 β©: 0
The closest mamilian analog to the snake?
π: 0 β©: 1
Perhaps, if it was indeed legless (a debatable point). However, it would have moved more like a caterpillar.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow 
π: 0 β©: 1
Out of curiosity, what did you use as a reference?
π: 0 β©: 1
There's next to nothing in terms of available papers on the internet and at my university. I got a couple on hedgehog taxonomy and various descriptions of the known bones. Bjork's (1975) Observations on the morphology of the hedgehog genus Proterix may have what I need, but I was unable to get it.
Otherwise there's this [link] and Proterix has an entry in the World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life, but otherwise, yeah, I need more references.
π: 0 β©: 3
Here's the link to Bjork: [link]
It's on page 91 onwards, and though it considers the possibility, it doesn't really go further than that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh my goodness! Thanks so much!
I'll look into it ASAP.
π: 0 β©: 0
I've got the original Gawne's 1968 paper on Proterix if you are interested...
π: 0 β©: 1
I was able to find that one. You wouldn't happen to have Bjork's?
π: 0 β©: 1
I got the encyclopedia this Saturday...
Already I'm greatly frustrated that they still say that Arsinoitherium had "hollow, conical" horns.
π: 0 β©: 1
And Longisquama is a glider, and mustelids got misspelled mustellids, and Compsognathus lacks feathers...
But it's amazing value for money. Where else can you get Proterix, Tritemnodon, Aelurocyon, and 4 species of chalicothere?
π: 0 β©: 1
True.
Still, what happens with Vegavis, stays with Vegavis
π: 0 β©: 0
This may sound like a trivial comment, but I love the dirt in this one! Did you use the Sponge filter for that porous effect? You get some really nice, rich tones in your paintings, I've noticed...The dirt and worm especially, here.
Wow, I don't think I've ever used the word "dirt" so much in an art critique.
: P
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, I used the runny watercolor brush in "Special Effects" brushes, and splattered different shades of brown all over. Usually, I tend to do the same thing in digital art as I'd do in traditional art. If this were traditional art, I'd have taken out the watercolors and let them run and blend together all over the paper.
Heh heh...
π: 0 β©: 0
spineless and probably legless? what??? Is this really true, or speculative?
π: 0 β©: 3
Also, mind you, not all hedgehogs have prickles: Proterix is very close to the basal hedgehogs, but, is apparently a little closer to the moonrats, as with Deinogalerix.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the tip my friend.
π: 0 β©: 1
When you're talking about hedgehogs, you have to get the point(s) across very clearly, otherwise, nothing will penetrate.
π: 0 β©: 1
That helps when dealing with thorny problems.
π: 0 β©: 1
I ain't echidna'ing you about that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Let's celebrate with porcupints of beer!
π: 0 β©: 1
They suspect it was legless because the spine suggests that the pelvis was not fused to the lower vertebrae, as in other terrestrial vertebrates.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hmm, I heard that no pelvis was found. Where's that from?
π: 0 β©: 1
Me misremembering what I read in Dougal Dixon's latest encyclopedia.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ouch, wait, I think there's a misunderstanding. Spineless as in no prickles or spikes. I should have corrected that one.
But you got legless right. No legs and girdles have been found in any of the specimens ([link] ). Proterix also shows up in The World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life (by, uh... Dougal Dixon). Its shape ranks among the most extreme adaptations to digging known. I desperately need to find out more about this animal.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow... Imagine if it really was spineless, and we could see its babies. CUTE OVERLOAD!!! I also gather there's something weird about its skull?
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>