|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:06 am
 ^ Meh in dragon form I believe. domokun I'm such a bad artist. sweatdrop (Please forgive me if this is in the wrong forum.) Okay, okay, here's the deal; Ever since I was beginning to discover my draconity since 3rd grade, I always imagined dragons being bipedal, I'm bipedal myself and for some reason the idea of quadrupedal dragons always bothered me, no offense to you quadrupeds out there. The other day, I was talking to my high school counselor on something, and she mentioned something about a news article or program called "In search of the dragon" or something like that where scientists pretty much proved dragon's existance! eek . According to her, the model they used was bipedal and had thumbs. Something I predicted myself! heart After that, I more or less began to dwelve on this, and I realized how a bipedal model would make more sense than a quadrupedal model. First of all, let's look at the three models often used to figure out draconic anatomy:  What's the catch? All the three models are bipedal. Carnivorous avians (the golden eagle pictured here) are often used when us dragons try to figure out how we were able to fly and they often do provide many clues such as how large a wingspan would be in ration to weight, wing structure, etc. To put it simply, when trying to figure out the possible anatomical structure of a dragon we cannot ignore the bird model. The second model is the surprisingly ignored theropod. I often wonder how since historians often argue that theropod fossils are what inspired the dragon in mythology (we dragons argue differently of course). Most dragons will agree on being large, carnivorous and reptillian to a point and therefore I bring the theropod up here. The theropod is a very useful model with its similarities. It can tell us the amount of food it could have eaten which can tell dragons what we could have eaten, speed and general anatomical structure and such depending on the size of the dragon and the theropod. The third model is Quetzalcoatlus, and this is a very recent discovery of the size of one. I had been researching this dinosaur only to be throughly dissapointed because the flight of Quetzalcoatlus is pretty much a mystery; scientists cannot find out how it flew if it did (many argue gliding). If solved, we could use the explanation to apply it to ourselves, but for now there is very little information on Quetzalcoatlus. What I did figure out however, is that after a certain size and therefore weight, an animal to take flight would be thought to have to run before taking flight (think airplane). This is a very important fact where I will argue my next point: (BTW: Hell, I wasn't anywhere near that big. eek ) 3 pairs of limbs? How? I have a theory that dragons used flight to hunt in a similar fashion to an eagle, and I'll use this to argue how a large, non-insect animal would evolve an extra set of limbs. Previously I mentioned how a large animal in order for flight would need to run, unfortunately, I believe that it is practically impossible to devop an anatomical structure which could act both running material, and fast running material and be able to attack its prey at flight at the same time. Therefore, the bipedal model fits well with the 6 limb explanation. This flight/6 limb explanation again brings me to my next point: intelligence. A large creature such as a dragon would not be able to carry anything large enough to fill its stomach to home or so because of the weight, therefore the dragon would have to its (I'm using 'it' for laziness) prey pretty much on the spot as it would dive to get at it. One thing I believe I remember as a dragon is that I had a four or five fingered "hand" with a thumb, what I did to pretty much kill my prey on the spot was dig these fingers in between its ribs to get at its lungs and sometimes even heart. Such attack would require extreme preciseness and calculation and this idea, along with draconic connection to avians (there has been cases where humans have been outsmarted by birds, primarily crows) shows that us dragons must have been, if not still are in another world or such, extremely intelligent. Bipedal does not equal anthropomorphic, that is only what humans wanted you to think! Humans only too often associate their bipedal forms with being an image of their gods and how they are superior to other animals. We all know that humans absolutely despise competition and therefore could have portrayed us as quadrupedal to make us more like, well, less intelligent animals that could compete with them. Dragons being bipedal and "competing" with humans for the title of dominant species would explain why we are so scorned by them and, I believe, mentioned in the bible to be the "image of Satan on Earth" as opposed to their "image of God on Earth". I'm not entirely sure on the second bit however so if anyone is willing to correct me please do so. sweatdrop Now, I'm not saying this is all true, but this is my little theory if you want to call it that and it is explained. I know that most dragons I have met argue that they are quadrupedal. If you wish to defend the quadrupedal model, go ahead, I don't mind and I'm only a highschooler and not a zoologist (yet!), so this is only with what I know. sweatdrop
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:27 am
It would depend particially on the bone structure of the legs, the joints to be precise. Things like alligators have hinge shaped joints, and could never, even potentially, walk on two legs.
Dinosaurs had ball jointed hips, which led to bi-pedal dinosaurs like therapods. Personally I always envisioned them as hollow boned creatures that had similiar skeletal structure to an apatasaurus, but with a shorter neck and tail, and more pointed snout. As for flying, pterosaurs are thought to have kept rookeries high in cliffs that they soared out of, then using "claws" on their wings, climbed back up.
Then again I'm also a firm believer in portal theory, parallel worlds and enegery networks, so there is no reason that different variations of a similar creature we term as "dragons" couldn't exist at the same time. What may have evolved on earth may have evolved differently elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:45 am
Like there are many types of dinosaurs(and other creatures), there are many types of dragons.
I've seen a bipedal dragon, though I've only seen a single bipedal compared to the 10+ quadrapedal dragons that I've encountered (one of whom is my spirit guide). I believe that they're more scarce than the quadrapedals, but that might just be my lack of searching for them.
Just like there can be bipedal and quadrapedals, I've also seen a dragon that had no wings at all.
Their environment has a lot to do with bone structure, how they look, and what they can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:07 am
Discordya Like there are many types of dinosaurs(and other creatures), there are many types of dragons. I've seen a bipedal dragon, though I've only seen a single bipedal compared to the 10+ quadrapedal dragons that I've encountered (one of whom is my spirit guide). I believe that they're more scarce than the quadrapedals, but that might just be my lack of searching for them. Just like there can be bipedal and quadrapedals, I've also seen a dragon that had no wings at all. Their environment has a lot to do with bone structure, how they look, and what they can do. Yes, there were many types of dinosaurs, but the carnivores were bipedal and the herbivores were quadru. That's where my point is. =o
Either way, I'm not a zoologist as of yet, so I really am no expert. This is what makes most sense with my knowledge. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:57 am
There is much yet to be known about dragons, indeed, and I'm not claiming that I know all about the ones I've seen, only that I've seen them. In order to fully understand what's going on with them, I would need to study each dragon's habitat for many years personally, interacting with those who would interact with me.
The few dragons that I've encountered have been brief visits, and I've only seen 3 of them more than once. One of which is my guide, but the other two were just curious to meet me (and I them!) for some reason. I only ever saw those two at the same time and 2 or 3 times in total.
On the case of dinosaurs v. dragons, there's a key difference:
Carnivorous dinosaurs were bipedal for speed and to make it easier to catch prey (the slow-moving, quadrapedal herbivores).
The dragons who can fly have a big advantage over dinosaurs, with their hollow bones and wings. Ground-dwelling dinosaurs were possibly much heavier than a dragon of equivalent size. Also, the dragons that fly can snatch up their prey, which adds to the maneuverability.
Some dragons may not have needed to be bipedal to hunt, like dinosaurs did.
Of course, this is nothing more than speculation, so I've got a huge margin for error here sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:07 am
Discordya There is much yet to be known about dragons, indeed, and I'm not claiming that I know all about the ones I've seen, only that I've seen them. In order to fully understand what's going on with them, I would need to study each dragon's habitat for many years personally, interacting with those who would interact with me. The few dragons that I've encountered have been brief visits, and I've only seen 3 of them more than once. One of which is my guide, but the other two were just curious to meet me (and I them!) for some reason. I only ever saw those two at the same time and 2 or 3 times in total. On the case of dinosaurs v. dragons, there's a key difference: Carnivorous dinosaurs were bipedal for speed and to make it easier to catch prey (the slow-moving, quadrapedal herbivores). The dragons who can fly have a big advantage over dinosaurs, with their hollow bones and wings. Ground-dwelling dinosaurs were possibly much heavier than a dragon of equivalent size. Also, the dragons that fly can snatch up their prey, which adds to the maneuverability. Some dragons may not have needed to be bipedal to hunt, like dinosaurs did. Of course, this is nothing more than speculation, so I've got a huge margin for error here sweatdrop I did mention before that dragons would need to run at their size to fly. So they more than likely did need to run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:23 am
If we're using dinosaurs for examples then I'd like to point out Coelausaurs. They were a type of Theropod with longer arms, and some even had "thumbs", T-rex is in that grouping only because of how his legs/feet were formed, but otherwise they look alot like what you envision. I'll try and scan some of the skeletal diagrams from my textbook 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:12 am
Aveykin If we're using dinosaurs for examples then I'd like to point out Coelausaurs. They were a type of Theropod with longer arms, and some even had "thumbs", T-rex is in that grouping only because of how his legs/feet were formed, but otherwise they look alot like what you envision. I'll try and scan some of the skeletal diagrams from my textbook 3nodding That would help! I just got a random image off google while searching "theropod". o_o
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:43 pm
Reyairia Discordya There is much yet to be known about dragons, indeed, and I'm not claiming that I know all about the ones I've seen, only that I've seen them. In order to fully understand what's going on with them, I would need to study each dragon's habitat for many years personally, interacting with those who would interact with me. The few dragons that I've encountered have been brief visits, and I've only seen 3 of them more than once. One of which is my guide, but the other two were just curious to meet me (and I them!) for some reason. I only ever saw those two at the same time and 2 or 3 times in total. On the case of dinosaurs v. dragons, there's a key difference: Carnivorous dinosaurs were bipedal for speed and to make it easier to catch prey (the slow-moving, quadrapedal herbivores). The dragons who can fly have a big advantage over dinosaurs, with their hollow bones and wings. Ground-dwelling dinosaurs were possibly much heavier than a dragon of equivalent size. Also, the dragons that fly can snatch up their prey, which adds to the maneuverability. Some dragons may not have needed to be bipedal to hunt, like dinosaurs did. Of course, this is nothing more than speculation, so I've got a huge margin for error here sweatdrop I did mention before that dragons would need to run at their size to fly. So they more than likely did need to run.
If u say that they would need to run to fly, it would make more sense that they are quadrapedal because that woul create the needed momentum quicker, but that also depends upon race of a dragon. If it is a wyvern, a quadrapedal, it wouldnt need to move at all to start flight because of its low weight. A typical medieval dragon would be quadrapeddal for its adaptations to be lower towards the ground for defense, and thicker (increasing weight) armor and bones for protection. My guess is though, that if it is a dragon that has escaped these wrong doings that it would be bipedal for a smoother, lightened movement, even though not near as light as wyvern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:14 am
Xx_TARION_xX Reyairia Discordya There is much yet to be known about dragons, indeed, and I'm not claiming that I know all about the ones I've seen, only that I've seen them. In order to fully understand what's going on with them, I would need to study each dragon's habitat for many years personally, interacting with those who would interact with me. The few dragons that I've encountered have been brief visits, and I've only seen 3 of them more than once. One of which is my guide, but the other two were just curious to meet me (and I them!) for some reason. I only ever saw those two at the same time and 2 or 3 times in total. On the case of dinosaurs v. dragons, there's a key difference: Carnivorous dinosaurs were bipedal for speed and to make it easier to catch prey (the slow-moving, quadrapedal herbivores). The dragons who can fly have a big advantage over dinosaurs, with their hollow bones and wings. Ground-dwelling dinosaurs were possibly much heavier than a dragon of equivalent size. Also, the dragons that fly can snatch up their prey, which adds to the maneuverability. Some dragons may not have needed to be bipedal to hunt, like dinosaurs did. Of course, this is nothing more than speculation, so I've got a huge margin for error here sweatdrop I did mention before that dragons would need to run at their size to fly. So they more than likely did need to run.
If u say that they would need to run to fly, it would make more sense that they are quadrapedal because that woul create the needed momentum quicker, but that also depends upon race of a dragon. If it is a wyvern, a quadrapedal, it wouldnt need to move at all to start flight because of its low weight. A typical medieval dragon would be quadrapeddal for its adaptations to be lower towards the ground for defense, and thicker (increasing weight) armor and bones for protection. My guess is though, that if it is a dragon that has escaped these wrong doings that it would be bipedal for a smoother, lightened movement, even though not near as light as wyvern. You'd think that, but as a heavy animal a dragon would not be able to run very fast if quadrupedal; if you study therapods you'll see that their bipedalism served very much for speed.
Yeah, a quadrupedal would work for heavy defense, but its heaviness because of that would unable it to fly. 4 legs are heavier than 2. =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:27 am
I think it would depend on the kind of dragon, really. There may have been more than one type. Sea serpents may be a kind of water dragon, whose wings evolved into fins. What about a dragon that didn't need to fly, and hunted its prey on the ground?
The Animal Planet documentary "Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real" has some REALLY good theories about dragons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:46 pm
Reyairia Discordya Like there are many types of dinosaurs(and other creatures), there are many types of dragons. I've seen a bipedal dragon, though I've only seen a single bipedal compared to the 10+ quadrapedal dragons that I've encountered (one of whom is my spirit guide). I believe that they're more scarce than the quadrapedals, but that might just be my lack of searching for them. Just like there can be bipedal and quadrapedals, I've also seen a dragon that had no wings at all. Their environment has a lot to do with bone structure, how they look, and what they can do. Yes, there were many types of dinosaurs, but the carnivores were bipedal and the herbivores were quadru. That's where my point is. =o
Either way, I'm not a zoologist as of yet, so I really am no expert. This is what makes most sense with my knowledge. 3nodding
In the case of dinosaurs being bipedal was the advantage, it allowed them to propel them selfs forward, being quadrupedal was for the stability of the herbivore and generally only the larger ones were quadrupedal, but there are always exceptions. In the case of dragons on two or four legs, it solely depends on the sub species. Wyrms tend to be quadrupedal most European dragons, elemental dragons ect tend to be able to be either. My dragon form I have large powerful hind legs and weaker front legs. I walk on all fours but do not have to, it just add stability due to my size. I am about two- three stories tall in my dragon form. My friend, who is a fire dragon has weak hind legs and strong forelegs, this proves better to help him fly due to his wing placement. Asian dragons don't rely on on their legs unless they are stationary (inn most cases) Sometimes they will run but they still use their magic to propel them selfs. Wyverns tend to solely be bipedal. which in your picture of your self, you look like the cross between a shadow, or acid dragon and a Wyvern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
