Bat Skeletons

From: <dr_faraday_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 02:55:36 -0000

I just had a look at Monique's unique version of x-ray power and I
was struck by a certain thought that I would like to have the group's
input on.
Specifically, should artwork of morphic bats have any anatomical
remnants of the calcar process? I can see arguments for both sides
of the issue....
First let us look at the importance of the calcar. It is the
anchoring structure for the posterior sections of the
uropatagium...er..hind wing membrane. This little bony outgrowth
sometimes serves as an insect "scooper" for smaller bats and looks
very much like a sixth digit arranged somewhat like an inverted
rooster spur. The attachment point of the calcar is completely
different between the mega-chiropterans (uber-bats) and the
microchiropterans (itty-bitty bats).
So than let us think about what the picture of Monique's skeleton
would look like with the calcar attached as it would be on a fruit
bat. Fruit bats are mostly megachiropterans so the calcar would
articulate, let's see...floating above the m. gastrocnemial tendon!
So then we have to take into account if Monique is plantigrade or
digitigrade, looks like she's digitigrade so there would be a
flexible wingspur coming out of the backs of her lower thighs just
below the knees, I believe.
However this could be considered unnecessary since JMH has decided to
not include any wing membrane at all on the hindlegs or hindquarters.
What do you think? Should there be a rudiment? Or not? Would it
look silly?
My personal opinion is that back leg spikes would give more of
a "warrior aesthetic" to the character.
Dr.faraday

Reference: Schutt, W.A., Jr., and N.B. Simmons. 1998. Morphology
and homology of the chiropteran calcar, with comments on the
phylogenetic relationships of Archaeopteropus. Journal of Mammalian
Evolution, 5: 1-32
Received on Tue Nov 27 2001 - 18:55:41 CST