HOME | DD
Spikeheila β Donsaur: Hands you're doing them wrong
Published: 2012-08-14 05:01:35 +0000 UTC; Views: 12895; Favourites: 57; Downloads: 16
Redirect to original
Description
Pronated hands VS Supinated hands.Hand pronation is a huge issue in most dinosaur-based art, and seems to be either a holdover from when dinosaurs were thought to run around in a tripod-like stance, or because Jurassic Park's dinosaurs had pronated hands.
Hand pronation ,at this point, is something not many dinosaurs can really do, and is even rarer in living animals today, not even crocodiles have pronated hands or birds.
Pronated or, zombie/ bunny hands, are completely useless to the animal, as now they are stuck in the useless and broken position. These hands can not be used to grab or manipulate objects. Dinosaurs' wrists weren't super flexible like ours, so once a dinosaurs' wrists are broken/pronated,they won't be doing much besides folding them inwards.
Ironically,whenever a dinosaur that usually has pronated hands wants to try and grab,manipulate,hold,threaten,or attack something, they usually supinate the hands ..
Pronated hands allow the dinosaur to:
Hold grocery bags and purses, look like a zombie, dig?
Supinated hands in dinosaurs is something the paleo community knows about pretty darn well, and isn't something that can be easily argued against,due to evidence proving that dinosaurs couldn't pronate their hands ,as well as dinosaur trackways. One could say supinated hands mean dinosaurs couldn't dig(as its one of the few realistic 'benefits' to having pronated hands),except a dinosaurs' back legs and feet were better suited for the task.
Supinated hands allow a (theropod) dinosaur to:
Cling to trees, hold and manipulate objects without easily dropping them, allow theropods with wings to display them, threaten other animals, slash and grab towards itself, use wings for potential increased turning radius in winged theropods, allow winged theropods to cover eggs when brooding, gliding and flight in smaller winged theropods, grasping partner during mating,and a few more things
A dinosaur with pronated hands could do none of those,especially the ones with the wings, as wings wouldn't work on a dinosaur with pronated hands,as a huge amount of the wing would be pointed straight out,and straight foreward, since the feathers there attach to the second digit of the hand, as with birds.
By wings I do not mean wings meant for flight, but a series of long fairly advanced feathers on the arm.
In this day and age, in the year 2012, there is no real reason for hand pronation whatsoever other than just plain not knowing and definitely not doing research.
Related content
Comments: 63
Is there any chance that any of the maniraptorans could have made and used rudimentary tools, like chimps when they fish for termites with those long sticks?
π: 1 β©: 0
I'm doing my part to really point this out in circles.
π: 0 β©: 0
Supination means that the palms face upwards, not each other.
π: 0 β©: 1
idk about you but this piece is from all the way back in 2012 and took like 15 minutes
π: 0 β©: 1
It was just a correction.
π: 0 β©: 0
Pronated hands never really looked good in my opinion, even before I heard about supinated hands. They just look broken in every way..
π: 1 β©: 0
Where did the pronated wrist myth start and why?
π: 0 β©: 1
Somewhere in the 19th Century, when we were just TRYING to understand dinosaurs. We didn't know much back then, anyway.
π: 0 β©: 0
I blame Jurassic park. It started practically every dino misconception.
π: 1 β©: 0
And beside that, bipedal dinosaurs with pronated hands look weird!
π: 0 β©: 0
Although the pronated wrists indeed were not possible in real dinosaurs, JP's mutants still have hands that are far from useless. I think at the end of the first film where the raptors corner the group, one of them supinates her wrists as she prepares to pounce. So clearly they do have movement in their wrists.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah. The frog DNA could have caused a mutation. It seems the arms would be useless if they could ONLY keeo their hand pronated.
π: 0 β©: 0
YES! Someone else who understands correctly! ^_^
π: 0 β©: 0
Boy was I happy when the Magic Tree House anime movie gave T. rex non-pronated hands, Β and for bonus points it also had Pteranodon taking off by vaulting with its wings!Β Β
π: 0 β©: 0
One thing I'm having a hard time trying to visualize is how dinosaurs with the "neck powered axe bite" and long arms (*cough*allosaurus*cough*) employed the two in tandem; did these dinosaurs stretch their arms beyond their jaws and then 'latch on' to the fleeing/struggling prey and then bite, like a modern lion? or did it strike mostly with the head, and then wrestle the prey to the ground using its forelimbs after the initial trauma? And one thing I'd really love to see is an animation/diagram of theropod Β forelimbs that are clearly NOT proto-wings, being moved in a full range of motion and flexion, as well being employed in some of the situations you've just described.
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe you'd be interested in obtaining Ken Carpenter's "Forelimb Biomechanics of Nonavian Theropod Dinosaurs in Predation " and Phil Senter's pertinent output . (You can ask the authors for these if there are no other access options available to you.)
I can say theropod arms aren't that long or that flexible that they can reach beyond the head of any of them in most situations. Only scansoriopterygids stand out as an exception because of the long third finger and relatively short neck.
π: 0 β©: 1
Damn, it's pity that it's paywalled, and for (relatively) a lot. I'll try access them a little later.
Okay, so if large predators couldn't normally get their limbs beyond their heads, how then were they used on big prey or even each other? I have heard suggestions of them using their arms in a clapping motion to catch prey directly under them, but i have not seen much by way of intimate, visual representation of the biomechanics of this, let alone the former two. I have seen Dinosaur Planets interpretation of the axe bite, as well two Giganotosaurs using their forelimbs to rake each other, but that really didn't satisfy my full curiosity. Thank you very much for these sources, however.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
No problem 
Well, I'll see what I can do regarding visual representation as I've mused before regarding those dinosaurian activities. No promises of a timely result though.
I do think for the most part the arms assisted dispatch and dismemberment of prey but weren't crucial to capture. Do keep in mind that the arms could have other functions, say collecting nesting material, display, etc.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
It's hypothesized that Spinosauridae were at least a facultative quadruped. If that was the case, then instead of palm-walking as they are usually portrayed when in that posture, I'd think it would knuckle-walk in the manner of an anteater. I wonder why the Jurassic Park series insisted on pronating their hands (and why the producers of the upcoming movie insist on scaly, non-feathered "Velociraptors").
π: 0 β©: 4
Mutations due to frog DNA.
π: 0 β©: 0
Dr. Wu explains all that in the movie. I don't wanna see tiny chickens when I see a JP movie...I wanna see what I've always seen. I wouldn't have gone to the movie if they suddenly changed all the dinosaurs appearances. If I want full accuracy I'll watch a documentary, not a Hollywood blockbuster. I still don't understand why people are bitching about this...
π: 1 β©: 1
I guess people are bitching about this because the general public think the animals portrayed in the movies are accurate, even if it's stated that they are not... Also, the JP animals look weird as fuck, and not in the good way.
π: 0 β©: 1
They really have no right to bitch about it, though. They have looked this way from the beginning, they aren't going to change it. And as someone of the 'general public', I'm very much aware these animals do not look like this ( or rather, didn't ) in real life. It's pretty common sense, and it's even stated quite plainly in the movies and the books that these are 'genetically modified monsters'. What's 'a good way'? Covering them in feathers? They would still look weird as fuck, and not in a good way. Cause let's face it, regardless, these would be animals millions of years back on the evolutionary train, and they would look weird. Really no point in making a huge fuss out of a science-fiction movie. Like I've said before, if I wanna learn about real dinosaurs and hear updated information, I'll do watch a documentary. Which I have.
I don't mean to be frustrated over this, or sound like I'm preachy / rude, cause you are free to your opinion...but I really don't think this was that important a thing to make such a huge storm over. They are always going to look this way in the movies, it's just what people have grown used to seeing in a JP movie.
π: 1 β©: 1
Why they don't have the right to express their opinions? It's because it bothers you? I don't get it...
I'm happy for you that you know they didn't looked like that, but I know people who think the JP animals are Dinosaurs, not movie monsters thing with an outdated design, and won't do research to see if it's the case or not.
Also, what would be a good way? Well, if you don't want feathers, at least, don't give them this unnatural and useless hand posture and better somewhat better proportions, because yes, put feathers on a JP animal would make it as weird as they are, since the JP animals are already fucked up.
π: 0 β©: 1
Supinated hands are the correct way an animal holds it's hands, but it's been shown numerous times in the JP movies that the Raptor's hands are not locked in a pronated state. So, they are far from useless. Go back and watch a few of the scenes in Jurassic World, most notably the ones with the Raptor squad. The 'supinated' state seems to be their resting state, while the rest of their wrists can twist and turn much like our own. A real Velociraptor couldn't twist or turn their wrists; they were permanently locked in a pronated state and were used primarily to lunge, grab, and drag prey back to them. The Velociraptor's in JP seem more than capable of of doing this as well, so saying the way they 'rest' their arms as 'useless' is just incorrect. Their hands / arms are extremely mobile, from what I have seen, and instead of having 'locked' wrists, they have full rotation. Actually, they would make their arms more akin to ours as opposed to pure predator.
And I don't care if people express their opinions; expressing their opinions as if they were gold and fact is an issue that's become more annoying than anything on the internet. Yes, you can have your opinion, but don't diss / bash others who have an opposite one. In fact, embrace it, because chances are you will learn something.
Given that these animals are / were being produced to test their for military use, making a four foot, chicken-like Raptor would ultimately be useless. They want something scary looking. Something recognizable. Something that looks more like a monster than an animal you could come across in the wild, which is what I believe, as an artist, they've achieved. Regardless of how 'fucked up' they are, I believe that's their full intention. Not to mention, I happened to love the Indominus, as far as design went. Then again, since she was completely 'original' and wasn't based on any particular animal, it may have made her more favorable as far as looks went.
π: 1 β©: 1
Yeah, the wirsts of the dinos from the saga are really flexible compared to their real counterparts, but still, this posture doesn't seem natural, and I don't think it's appropriate to give them these pronated hands as a neutral posture.
And if you say it's for the sake of continuity, well, they changed the Pteranodons, the Raptors, the appearance of the Triceratops, the Ankylosaurs. And even Rexy, the only animal that was also present in the first movie have a less rounded head in JW (one can say it's because the age of the specimen, but still), so I don't see why they shouldn't leave their animals with these pronated hands.
About opinions, it's funny that you say that you we shouldn't diss opinions of other... You somewhat did it when you stated that they have no right to bitch about this.
Also, calling a JP raptor "scary looking" uh... well... I guess it's subjective... but I never found the JP raptors scary at all, so I don't understand when people use this to make a point.
And please, if you want to do an analogy with modern birds when you speak about Dromaeosaurids, use "land eagles" instead of "chickens", it's more appropriate.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not really sure it's meant to be 'natural'. Imagine, you want a war machine, you want them to have the best qualities they possibly can to kill. Wrists locked in a singular position wouldn't be your first choice. Seeing as we're the most effective killers on the planet, due to our range of hand motion and yes, intelligence, they'd probably want to give their dinos the same traits if they were going to use them as 'weapons'. Being able to open doors is just one advantage. I'm sure the second movie, we'll see them in combat situations. To me, that's why Indominus was given the hands she had; pretty sure Trevorrow said she possessed opposable thumbs, as well. The Raptors looked different, mostly because of the animal DNA they were mixed with. They stopped using frog DNA to stop breeding, so I'm positive that beginning to mix a multitude of different kinds of animals would give all these new ones different appearances. Not to mention, the movie pretty much tells us that the scientists have almost 100% control of what features their dinos do and don't have. I'm sure they just...made them look however they want.
Yes, because I'm tired of hearing it, honestly. It's quite pretentious, and it's especially prevalent on deviantart, for whatever reason. Yes, I probably took out my 'rage' in my comment, but it still stands firm. Many artists who draw JP raptors ( or any of the dinosaurs ) realize the inaccuracies, but artistic liberty is a thing. They can draw what they want. If everyone was drawing everything 100% realistic, the art world would be a boring one.
Completely subjective. Lots of people think they are scary, lots of people don't. I won't debate about that.
Most books I've read, and even paleontologists doing research about these animals, have jokingly referred to them as 'chickens from Hell.' I just watched a documentary where this term was used. It's being used more in jest, because you could literally called them any kind of bird and be pretty accurate.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, real Raptors seemed to do it well with their wirsts with a limited range, and they weren't intended to be used as weapons in the original JP, so a "war machine" thing on animals intended as theme parc attractions (and were intended to be as accurate as possible by the time of the original JP) doesn't seem really valid. Also, they still have the same look in JW (minus some details and the colors).
It's true that some people can lack tact (especially feathernazis), but I guess they are just as tired as you because of all of the fanboyism that you can find on the net, I don't speak about artists that are aware and accept the modern interpretation of these animals, I speak about the horde of butthurt JP fanboy who said that "FEATHERS ARE LAAAAAME" to anybody that are next to them.
The fact that they are called "chickens" make them look like less than effective predators and more like little clucky things in the eyes of the majority (even if the chickens next to my house can have a somewhat frightening behaviour, when they eats rats or chicks for example) and it's one of the reason for why many people think that feathered Dinosaurs are lame... It's also less accurate in their behaviour since eagles are predatory hypercarnivores birds, and chickens are not.
π: 0 β©: 1
You can't really say what Dr. Wu was doing in JP, seeing as he's the only reoccurring character in the franchise; not to mention he seemed pretty adamant that everything he did was the only reason JP existed. The sequel might reveal more about him. Have you ever played the games? The little mobile game? It delves even further into fucking around with genetics. Please look up the Stegaceratops. It was meant to be in the movie, but they scrapped it. Proof that Dr. Wu wasn't just messing around with the I. Rex, but he was taking it a step further and just combining other dinosaurs. I highly doubt the guy EVER cared about things 'looking real', he just wanted to prove he could mess with genetics and prove he could do whatever he wanted. I think that's why he's the only returning character, cause this was something that's been going on for 20+ years. Nobody was aware of it, though, not even Hammond. He created whatever he felt like creating, and yeah, the BASE of the dinosaur might've been something RELATED to the actual thing, but in his own words they are just genetic monsters and if he'd actually given a damn to make them PURE, they'd 'look quite different.'
But anyways, I shouldn't really respond to this anymore, lol. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I'm sure as Hell not a JP fanboy. The movies are mediocre at best ( save the first one ), but I can still understand why they kept around iconic designs instead of changing everything up so suddenly. I mean, the next movies are supposed to have combinations of humans and raptors. You ever seen the concept art of that? Cause it's terrifying as all get out. 2.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/28/52β¦ So I'm guessing that by the next movie-...anything even remotely associated with 'real dinosaurs/theme parks/pure genetics' is gonna get the absolute boot.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I guess in JP, Wu only did his job, we don't really have any character developpement in the first movie (it's better in the book, and then, he dies). But I speak about the primary reason of these animals in the first movie: theme parc attractions, nothing else.
A person change in 22 years, but here, I speak about the raptors from the first Jurassic Park, NOT the ones from Jurassic World, who look similar minus some little details (I thought it was clear, but I probably messed up with the English or something, I write in English, but I think in French^^).
In the first JP, the Dinosaurs were meant to look as accurate as possible... for the early 90's standard, they were not supposed to be monsters created for war. Obviously, science marches on, even in the universe of the movies and they now know that these animals looked different, but they have to keep some continuity, and please the JP fanboys.
Um... that picture, is it not one that was from a leaked and abandoned script from 2005 or something like that? Because it seems to be.
And yeah, we shouldn't continue, this will go forever, since you seem as stubborn as me... So let's say we are agree to desagree.
π: 0 β©: 1
Could be abandoned, but I had heard they abandoned it because they didn't want it involved in the very first Jurassic World film. I heard they were going to introduce it in the sequels, since it would 'fit' more. Either way, I can definitely see them tampering with genetics to that degree in the future.
And yeah, that's fine with me. I simply understand why they choose not to. It's a science-fiction popcorn thriller, I didn't really go in expecting it to be anything more than what it had always been. Science marches on both in the films and in real life. So there's that.
π: 1 β©: 0
This is why I disliked most modern movies and animes are in any way better than those mainstream films !
π: 0 β©: 0
Because of their stubborness of course!
π: 0 β©: 1
No. Due to the mutations by using frog DNA.
π: 1 β©: 1
A funny thing is that frogs don't have pronated hands. The frog DNA justification is just this, a justification to the outdated appearance of their Dinosaurs. And it doesn't work very well by the way, because the JP Dinosaurs are reptile-looking, and not amphibian-looking.
π: 0 β©: 1
Frogs do not pronate their hands? Hahahahaha. I suppose you never examinated that in real frog photos.
And even if they can't do it on a significant way, it wiuld be because their radius and ulna are fused. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, did not have a radio-ulna, but a radius and an ulna (and in the case of deinonychus and gallimimus, for example, they were very long. If they were flexible like ours, they would be able to almost pronate their hands).
And you think that Jurassic park dinosaurs should be more amphibian? They were HYBRIDS! CLONES! The frog DNA could have prevented the development if feathers, but would not necessarily prevent the development of scales.
π: 0 β©: 1
Teheh, you're funny. Actually, I already examined frogs and toads both on photos and in real life, dead and alive, and yes, they can't do a hand pronation as the animals on the movies do, their palms are facing donwnward because of the orientation of the whole arm, so nah, not because of the mutation, it's just an outdated design.
Also, "if" is the keyword here, they could indeed rotate their wirsts in some degree, but their wirsts are far from being as flexible as ours, and no Theropod would have hands like the ones from JP (it's also the case of a lot of other Dinosaurs, actually), and if they could, it wouldn't be their neutral posture. Now make an experience, try to put your hands in the same position as a bird's wing when it is folded, unless you break your wirst, you can't (no shit), for Theropods, it's the same thing with hand pronation.
Alsoooooo, your "prevented this integument developpement and not this one, et cætera..." theory is theorically (hurray for redundancy) not wrong, since it's a fiction, but with this you just stabbed Occam in the dick with his razor...
π: 0 β©: 1
Alright. It seems you have never seen these photos:Β farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/3β¦ image.shutterstock.com/displayβ¦
To see if frogs can pronate their hands I did the same positions with my own arms. Take a look at this upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia⦠and compare with the other ones. Make the exact same positions with your arms and you will see that the frogs are abke to pronate their hands.
π: 0 β©: 1
Like I said (or typed, it is more appropriate here) it's the position of the whole arm is that give this illusion, there is nothing to do with the wirsts themselves. Also, if you want to go with that, it doesn't look like the way the JP dino's hands are, the position of the hands of the JP dinos is more like the way cats and dogs fold their forefeet.
π: 0 β©: 2
HA! MORON! Does nit even test and say bullshit like if it was true!
In the first image you can see that te frog pronated it's front paws a little bit (if you make the same position with your own arms and hands). The frog pronates it's hands almost like how the Jurassic Park T. rex is able to do so (s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/7β¦ ).
But frogs are not able to pronate their hands on a significant way because THEIR RADIUS AND ULNA ARE FUSED, FORMING A RADIO-ULNA (the complete opposite of theropods). Many theropods (like drinonychus and gallimimus) had long radius and ulna, what would have given the more flexibility.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ha! Moron! You does not even test it with your won arms and talk bullshit as if it was true.
In one of the images that I showed you the frog shows that it's front paws are a bit pronated. Not fully pronated obviously, but kind like how the Jurassic Park T. rex pronates it's hands (s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/7β¦ ).
And it is due to the fact that frogs have many wrist bones, though their radius and ulna are not only short but are also fused (what gives less flexibility), the complete opposite of dinosaurs like deinonychus and gallimimus (both appeared in Jurassic Park with the ability to pronate their hands). With the mutation from the frog DNA, one explanation is that dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were born with aditional wrist bones, but, unlike frogs, theropods have unfused radius and ulna, and in many theropods they are very long (what would have given them flexibility).
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't have a discussion with you, it's not worth my time.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ha! Fallacy of the personal attack detected.
It shows I won this one. You just insulted me without giving arguments.
π: 0 β©: 1
Says the guy who insults me in all caps without giving any good argument...
π: 0 β©: 1
Without giving any good argument? HAHAHA!
At least I know when someone is acutally giving good arguments.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I'm not the one who still repeat the same crap over and over, try to hurt me or something, and say that I'm a moron without actually know me.
And if it's you who have a good argument... well... one can dream! ^^
π: 0 β©: 1
Same crap? Hahaha. Do some research befire saying shit.
And I only called you a moron because you put those "emogis" first. So you teased me first.
π: 0 β©: 1
Teheh, you know, you really should apply your advice to yourself before trying to teach something to someone.
Well, then, you insulted me and behave like a brat... because I used an emoticon? Wow! You seem to have a case of butthurt my dear!
And finally, you can reply to me anytime you want, I will just sit here and look at your gesticulations with an amused eye.
π: 0 β©: 1
Look at that emoction again: it is a laughing face. That face can "translate" in "you are such an idiot" or so ething like that. So in some way you insulted me first.
And unlike you, I seached and observed. Frogs are not able to pronate their hands because they have a radio-unla (fused radius and ulna). But their hands are quite flexible.
π: 0 β©: 1
The laughing face doesn't translate as "your are an idiot" in this case, you just made me laugh, without any bad feelings, that's all. Also your whole attitute toward me was kinda rude, so I can say you insulted me first...
I like the "I searched and observed" thing and then said something that contradict what you have said earlier.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>