Comment on Wyvern Musculature by KatePfeilschiefter
Hm, if they were originally hexapods, what happened to the extra pair of limbs?
I dont think any piece of anatomy has completetly been reduced away, just made so tiny it hardly exists....
It would be easy to see wyverns with tiny t-rex/carnotaur arms, would make their relationship with the dragons a lot clearer. Especially if they are cousins, since the arms wouldnt have had time to completetly disappear.
I dont think any piece of anatomy has completetly been reduced away, just made so tiny it hardly exists....
It would be easy to see wyverns with tiny t-rex/carnotaur arms, would make their relationship with the dragons a lot clearer. Especially if they are cousins, since the arms wouldnt have had time to completetly disappear.
There is evidence of animal species losing pieces of there anatomy entirely over time. Whales are a good example of a creature that started as a quadraped and now only has front limbs. And snakes and legless lizards have lost all their limbs, for that matter. 
To my knowledge at least snakes still have remnants of their bones left. :l
It takes a very very long time for that however, I think. It would make more sense if they diverged far earlier, like dinosaurs and pterodactyls diverged very early in their existence.
It takes a very very long time for that however, I think. It would make more sense if they diverged far earlier, like dinosaurs and pterodactyls diverged very early in their existence.
Snakes don't tend to have anything left - in most cases they've even lost their shoulder and hip girdles. [link] But then again, some large pythons still have little back-leg 'stubs'. [link]
In the end, the amount of time something like that takes to atrophy completely would come down to how detrimental it would be to have it around - so unless it was environmentally supportable for them to do so, growing limbs that aren't needed would be a pretty big waste of resources.
![[link]](https://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://www.hemmy.net/images/animals/snakeskeleton05.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/pythonDM0711_468x360.jpg){kind=link}
In the end, the amount of time something like that takes to atrophy completely would come down to how detrimental it would be to have it around - so unless it was environmentally supportable for them to do so, growing limbs that aren't needed would be a pretty big waste of resources.
Well, in my eyes, having the extra arms is not very detrimental at all for the wyvern. It would probably be light enough to allow flight (after all, the dragons can fly and they have six limbs), so it would be very slow to lose the limbs. Alternatively, if it is very detrimental, why are dragons thriving with six limbs?
Having front limbs that aren't used soley for locomotion can be a great advantage - look at humans, our front limbs are very useful - and being able to fly without losing that could lead to an advantage over a similarly built flying quadraped, who has to give up its front (or rear) limbs as they become wings.
Wyverns not having the third pair of limbs can have advantages if they are a small animal, as you'd have to be able to support the extra weight from the fore-limbs in flight, which would mean you'd require either more wing surface, and/or stronger/denser flight-muscles, and more energy to drive it all - and it takes far more energy to fly a given distance than it does to walk, or even run. So not having those limbs would free up all the nutrients and energy that would be going to unused front limbs so that they have more to be able to fly.
But, who knows, maybe there is a "missing link" form around somewhere with tiny little arms. They wouldn't have just suddenly dropped off, after all.
Wyverns not having the third pair of limbs can have advantages if they are a small animal, as you'd have to be able to support the extra weight from the fore-limbs in flight, which would mean you'd require either more wing surface, and/or stronger/denser flight-muscles, and more energy to drive it all - and it takes far more energy to fly a given distance than it does to walk, or even run. So not having those limbs would free up all the nutrients and energy that would be going to unused front limbs so that they have more to be able to fly.
But, who knows, maybe there is a "missing link" form around somewhere with tiny little arms. They wouldn't have just suddenly dropped off, after all.
Well, looking at quetzalcoatl, it had an enormous head and was ridiculously large. It could probably fly very effortlessly, so a smaller animal could support a pair of front limbs as well. It would actually be disadvantageous for a wyvern to lose those frontlimbs.
I doubt their weight would add that much trouble for the wyvern, since it could easily fly via gliding.
It actually takes a lot less to fly than to run if you dont flap very much. Seems to me that the wyverns pictured here are larger than an eagle, so they would probably be gliding for the most part.
The thing is, the frontlimbs most likely wouldnt go unused - they could be used to catch prey, and to carry items (like nesting material.) It might also make climbing easier, since they wouldnt have to fortify their wings for the stress of walking on them.
I doubt their weight would add that much trouble for the wyvern, since it could easily fly via gliding.
It actually takes a lot less to fly than to run if you dont flap very much. Seems to me that the wyverns pictured here are larger than an eagle, so they would probably be gliding for the most part.
The thing is, the frontlimbs most likely wouldnt go unused - they could be used to catch prey, and to carry items (like nesting material.) It might also make climbing easier, since they wouldnt have to fortify their wings for the stress of walking on them.
It's important to remember that weight conservation is ALWAYS an issue when it comes to flying - compare Archaeopteryx and the modern crow - they're both about the same size, but the crow will be the more efficient, (or even 'optomized'), of the two when it comes to flight simply because of the differences between them. Heck, even aircraft run to the rule of 'lighter and less pokey-out extras is better'. As for Quetzalcoatlus, its skull has ENOURMOUS fenestrae in it to lighten it, and its body wasn't very big at all - it's been estimated that even azhdarchids the size of a giraffe would only weigh up to about 250kg.
Anyways, while I don't doubt that front limbs have the possibility to be useful, I doubt that arms like that of a tyrannosaur or carnotaurus would be very good for catching prey, climbing, or even carrying things. And you have to admit that even things that are useful can get lost to evolution - our ancestors had tails after all.
Anyways, while I don't doubt that front limbs have the possibility to be useful, I doubt that arms like that of a tyrannosaur or carnotaurus would be very good for catching prey, climbing, or even carrying things. And you have to admit that even things that are useful can get lost to evolution - our ancestors had tails after all.
View all replies