"The Spirally Slanted Spidrid's Mad Dash For Safety!"

Last September I presented part of a painting showing the Mad Sickle, a species of spirally slanted spidrid ('slanties'). The comments quickly gave rise to two new ideas: the first was that the legs and body of slanties might hook up to form a nearly impregnable wall. I should probably do a painting of one. The second was that slanties might well move by cartwheeling. Imagine that as follows: a spidrid's body along with the legs sticking out in all directions forms a disk; now flip the disc onto its edge and roll it along; that's it.  Slanties might use this trick to escape very quickly down a hill.

As usual, life on earth manages to trump anything the speculative biologist can think of. To prove that, here is a short video showing a Namibian spider using exactly that same trick to escaper down a hill, narrated by Sir David Attenborough. There are also spiders that actually do a series of somersaults, head over tails, but that is another type of movement and also another story: here's a video).

Slanties have an additional trick up their sleeves: once flipped on their side, there is nothing to stop them from using the power of their legs to make this an active way of locomotion. Slanties need not be content with passively rolling downhill; they can get out of the way on horizontal terrain too. Actually, they could even roll uphill. I do not think that that would be more effective than normal walking (normal for slanties, that is!), but they could. 

Mind you, I am not saying I am the first to invent this way of locomotion for a fictive animal. I have written about Warren Fahy's 'disc ant' in the past, and there may be earlier manifestations as well.

   
So here is a quick animation of a slanted spidrid moving in this fashion. The legs flex and extend while the body rotates. I suppose it could also move on the other direction with nearly the same movement. We are looking at the dorsal side of the beast.

Here it is again, rolling in and out of view.

I doubt the animal would use this type of movement as part of its normal repertoire, because I do not think it would be able to see well, with the entire world circling around them like mad. In this respect, the movement is a bit like 'cernuation', a term to describe the movement of the 'squibbon' of The Future is Wild. To read about possible visual problems, find the posts here and here. The poor spidrid only sees the world as a blur when wheeling around in this way, and that is why it uses wheeling only as a last resort to escape from predation.

Thomastapir’s Xenohox Gazelle

Readers who have followed my Furaha work and this blog will know that I take a strong interest in biomechanics and locomotion, resulting in studies and animations of concepts such as six-legged gallops, radial walks and tetropter flight. There is of course another drive at work, and that is the wish to create something new, something truly alien. Given the immense diversity of life of Earth I used to feel that there probably was not that much that blind evolution had not yet stumbled upon, but later I felt that the limited number of basic animal shapes on Earth does in fact pose limits on the shapes we see, varied as they are. Hence forms such as spidrids and tetropters that I consider among my most original animal schemes. But at heart I am a bit conservative, which is why I hesitate to depart from known and tested body schemes.

Luckily, not everyone lets himself be restrained in this way, and that is why I would like to draw your attention to the work of thomastapir, whose work can be seen at deviantART. Like me, he likes locomotion and biomechanics, and he has produced some truly original creatures. I will only focus on one of his aliens here, but his dinosaurs and mythical beasts are well worth an visit. I will very likely revisit his page one day to discuss the 'Moebius inside out animal'.

Click to enlarge; copyright thomastapir

Xenohox Triphidian
I should perhaps jump right in with the Xenohox gazelle, as starting there will give you the full sense of wonder, but it would need a lot of explaining at once. Starting with this forerunner, here in its original place, has the advantage that its shape can be taken in fairly easily. Now this shape is new. One way to look at body shapes is to smooth the surface of animals until the shape cannot be reduced further, revealing its topology. Limbs, as simple protrusions, disappear, and our own vertebrate shape reduces to a blob with a hole through it, i.e. a torus: our digestive tract forms the hole. Jellyfish have no such hole, and can be reduced to a blob, or probably even a sheet. Thomastapir's animal represents three half tori mashed together.

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

That is what you see above: the blob on the left with a hole through it represents humans and our Earth kin us reduced to our basic topology, whereas the more complex structure on the right is the triphidian. The points where the three half tori join would be natural spots to place the machinery of an animal, meaning its digestive, respiratory, cleaning and neural tracts, along with other odds and ends that need not be universal, such as spleens. The legend on the deviantART page does state that the 'bodies' indeed house the organs. One is called the head and the other the body, which is almost a pity: departing the beaten track should perhaps be accompanied by more original anatomical names as well.

Click to enlarge; copyright thomastapir

Xenohox Gazelle    
The animal above, the 'Xenohox Gazelle', has the same topology as the triphidian. To develop it, we can pull at the surface to produce extrusions, in the same way we can pull at a single torus to sculpt a human or a millipede. The result of this sculpting are three strong limbs. 

You will probably need time to work out how this animal is built, and understanding how it moves will take more study. Thomastapir's remarks on his deviantART page explain how it works. He has chosen to keep the triradial anatomy fully intact. Others -well, me at any rate, see here and here- might have decided to let two of the half tori develop into weight-bearing structures, freeing the other one for other uses such as manipulation. Thomas kept all three as equally functional locomotor limbs, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the animal must turn along its body axis to bring each limb towards the floor in turn. That is very interesting but also very complex. You will need a good ability to visualise movement in your mind's eye to understand it. This is the task: the animal is running across your imaginary field of vision, its body spinning like a screw as it does so. Each leg rotates along with the body, and when it is pointed downward, it also moves backwards pushing at the ground. When it moves up again it also moves forward. If you manage to visualise that, add the two other legs, of course with the proper phase difference. Got it?

If you did not, never mind, as I prepared an animation to help you see how it works. I am fairly pleased how it turned out, although it seems to move more ponderously than the name 'gazelle' suggests. Perhaps I stumbled along the analogue of a heavy eland antelope instead of a slightly built gazelle. 

I do see one problem with this way of movement, and that is that it adds complexity to sensing the world around you. The eyes turn with the animal, so the visual field continually turns around as well. That cannot help vision one bit. This is very similar to the problem I encountered in 'cernuation'. There was a solution though: the head would turn against the movement keeping the eyes still (of course, after one turn the head would have to snap back to allow a new counter turn). When I mentioned the vision problem to thomastapir he answered the following:  

"On the complication of vision due to rapid rotation about the long axis--it could be a matter of, let's say it has three eyes, that each eye takes a sort of "snapshot" at specific point in its motion cycle--say, when the given eye reaches the top of its rotation.  So then a composite or gestalt image is built up sequentially from those single snapshot images, almost like a flip book or film strip.  The rate of rotation is rapid enough that it should create a fairly smooth, uninterrupted stream of visual information. And certainly it could keep one or more eyes continuously open when it's motionless or walking slowly." 

That would probably work, but is not ideal either, as visual information would be lost some of the time.

 

Anyway, above is another animation with added drama. Nice, isn't it? The topic of how such animals stand still or walk slowly also came up in our conversation, and it appears there are several solutions for this. Would evolution leave the animal this way, or would it evolve towards a simpler 'same side up' form? Would its particular set of hox analogue genes even allow such an evolution? I do not know, nor do I care much, while enjoying the creativity of the Xenohox gazelle and its mode of locomotion. 

Walking without Legs

Pardon? Is walking without legs possible? Well, if you stretch the definition a little...

There are quite a few terrestrial animals on Earth that have no legs; earthworms, legless lizards and particularly snakes come to mind. These are not evolutionary misfits whose leglessness will be their doom any day now. Snakes have been around for some 150 million years, after all. Limblessness in legless lizards seems to have evolved at least 8 times, also suggesting that 'not having a leg to stand on' is not necessarily a bad thing. It is probably a very good thing if your life style requires moving around in confined spaces where legs might hold you back, such as underground, in very dense growth and probably in crevasses between rocks. In fact, you may well wonder whether legless animals might be universal, found on many worlds across the universe.

If so, would all 'serpentiformes' or 'ophimorphs' (take your pick) move in the same way? That is debatable, as there may be one or two possible gaits that do not seem to be in use on Earth. How do animals without legs move on Earth? There are animals whose body length can vary, such as earthworms, but let's only look at those with a fixed body length, such as snakes. You can find more on that using Wikipedia etc., but here is a short summary.

The internet did not let me down in a search for interesting material. In the past I have found that some of my biomechanical ideas to design interesting life forms had also been invented by others designing robots, such as tetropters (radial flyers). In this case it was the other way around, and I came across a mechanical invention that might perhaps be 'biologified'. I found it on the website of the biorobotics laboratory of the Carnegie Mellon School of computer science, where they have lots of interesting material on the design of robotic snakes (there are other robot snake designers, but this site seems to cover all aspects).

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

Click to enlarge; source here

The basic element of robotic and live snakes is a segment (vertebrates are just as segmental as arthropods; the segments are just less apparent form the outside). In the picture above each segment is connected to the next with a universal joint, allowing movement up and down and sideways. The robotic snakes seem to have joints with just one axis of rotation (either up-down or sideways), but these alternate on consecutive joints. There is no movement along the longitudinal axis of the segments. Well, in animals there is almost always a bit of leeway, but not a lot; it's certainly not as if a segment could rotate 10 or 20 degrees along a longitudinal axis. It is tempting to adapt the design to allow more longitudinal rotation, and it would increase the 'alienness' of the design. (We need a word to describe how 'alien' an animal is compared to 'life as we know it'; 'alienosity'?)

Anyway, Earth's snakes can move in various ways. There is the 'rectilinear' mode, in which a bit of skin on the belly of the snake is lifted, moved forward, and put back on the ground again. The next bit of skin does the same thing but slightly out of phase, so you end up with a wave of skin rippling backwards along the belly of the beast. As the ripples push against the immobile earth, the snake moves forward. Think about this: part of the body, while lifted from the ground, swings forwards with respect to the centre of gravity of the body, and when it is on the ground it swings backwards: that is a description of what a leg does, if not what a leg is. A fine distinction, but an interesting one: do you define walking by its functional characteristics, or by the body parts that carry out the function? I tend to prefer the first option, but the consequence would be that snakes walk, and that departs too much from common use of 'walking'.

A very interesting snake gait is 'sidewinding'. Here, the snake lifts an entire segment of its body from the ground, moves it forwards, and puts it down again. You get the picture: a walking analogue again. The robotic snake does it too, with waves travelling down the body both in the up and down and sideways directions. In real life it is quite difficult to get a good understanding of how this works using just diagrams, but the videos shown here might help. Sidewinding provides snakes with their fastest way of locomotion: it is the 'running' of the snake world.

Now we get to the creative part: a gait snakes do not use. The robot's body is moved into a curve, so it lies in a plane. Now imagine that you change the direction of curvature a bit, so both ends of the animal would be lifted from the ground. That is not going to happen, as the uplifted ends of the body will fall towards the ground. The result is a C-shaped curve that rolls forward, a bit as how you would move a log by rolling it over the ground. I was struck by the creative beauty of this solution.

But before people trot off to design rolling metaserpents for their own worlds, they should think about why Earth's snakes don't do this. Rolling along the longitudinal axis of the body will cause the animals' head to spin quite literally. The poor animal will have difficulty in keeping its bearings. Regular readers may remember that there was a similar problem with cernuation. I wouldn't say this form of locomotion, which the robot designers called 'rolling', is impossible for animals, but the animal better have very sophisticated vestibular and equilibrium systems. Alternatively, or additioanlly, the head could do its own counter rotation, in the same way cernuating animals could temporarily keep their head still. Spinning ballerinas also rotate their head opposite their body to keep it still in space, and they are not alien (perhaps a tiny bit).

Here is another example of what 'rolling' can do: the designers have actually been able to make their robot climb a tree! Spectacular, isn't it?

And finally, a robot that is not very prominently displayed on their site. They call it the 'skin drive', and about the only information is that it uses its entire skin to move. From looking at the video, it seems to have flexible rubbery skin, and underneath that there must be series of elements that can be stuck out radially and retracted again. I guess that waves of extraction and retraction march backwards across the body, as if you would push successive fingers against a sheet of rubber. If these fingertips find enough traction against the ground, they will stay in place, and the body as a while will be pushed forwards. It is a bit like 'rectilinear' snake movement, but not exactly the same. I wonder where the inventors will take it, or where its evolution will lead to.

To cernuate or not to cernuate... (cernuation III)

It would appear that my previous explanation of cernuation left something to be desired, so I will try again. When I coined the word, I was thinking about a mode of locomotion invented by the people responsible for 'The Future is Wild' (TFIW). The squibbons, descendants of cephalopods, have taken to the trees and swing from branch to branch from their tentacles. That could be just what a tentacle might be good at, as it mostly involves tensile forces; tentacles are not well fit to withstand compressive forces needed for walking.

Brachiation is what comes to mind when gibbons or monkeys swing from branch to branch: they hang from one arm while the other swings to grab another branch. While they do so the body stays largely upright, meaning the head is always above the feet.

The way squibbons do this, cernuation, has similarities: the animal swings suspended from one or more arms while other arms move forward to grab a new branch. But the movement is like an inverted somersault, so, while one swing sees the head upwards, the next has it downwards. I presented a fragment of 'TFIW' showing a squibbon moving that way, but the lighting was not very even so the movement may not have been well visible. This post rectifies that.

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

Above you see a rough model of a cernuator. It is only a simple ZBrush model, not meant as a proper animal (I hope my ZBrush friends will forgive me). The animal has very long eye stalks, long arms and long legs, and the head is kept downwards so the eyes stay near the centre of the body; the body is even bent to make room. Having the eyes near the centre was borrowed from the squibbon; this particular concept is stressed in the book 'TFIW'. The idea is probably that this eye position minimises the vertical distance the eyes travel over during cernuation. We'll get back to that.

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

This image shows part of the movement cycle, starting when the body hangs vertically from the arms, and ending where the animal can grasp another branch with its feet.

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

The next diagram starts at the same stage, and ends at the point where the hands are ready to grasp a branch. Note that the animal is upside down during this part of the movement, and moves with its back towards the direction of swing.

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

And finally the animal swings from its hands right up to the point where the cycle began. Notice that the body is now right side up again, and the back faces, well, backwards. That's cernuation.

As I wrote before, I admire the ingenuity that went into its design. The more I think about it though, the more I start doubting how well it would work. There is no mechanical problem at all in swinging like this. Instead, the problem is one of motor control and of visual perception. It is amazing that animals like gibbons actually manage to travel through woods at high speeds. Just imagine how much more difficult their task would be if their image of the world not just zoomed forwards as well as bobbing up and down, as it does in brachiation, but also rotated constantly as it must in cernuation. Have a look at the animal's head above: it is actually turned upside down at one point. How do cernuating animals manage to pick out the next branch?

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

That must have been the reason why the squibbon's designers situated its eyes near the centre of mass. The picture above shows all stages in the movement, with a black line indicating the position of the eyes. Compare that to the position of the feet or the hands (blue line), and you will see that the centre of the body moves less vertically than any part far away from the centre. You may now also understand why the squibbon's eyes stick out sideways: if not, it would not be able to look forwards at times because its body would be in the way!

Click to enlarge; copyright Gert van Dijk

While this eye position minimises vertical displacement, it does nothing to solve the problem of the eye rotating, and with it the animal's view of the world. Perhaps that can be rectified. Let's suppose the head can be rotated by about 180 degrees. Have a look at animal A shown here. Hanging from its hands like this it will view the world as being the right side up. If it were to change the position of its head as in B, it would see the world upside down, right? That is not at all useful, unless of course the body itself would be upside down. Obvioulsy that is the case while cernuating, so if we take animal B, freeze it and rotate it, head and all, you get animal C. The trick would be for the animal to rotate its head from one position to the other quickly when the point of contact changes. During the swing, the animal could then always keep the head in the same vertical position so it could see what it is doing! I do not know whether squibbons were supposed to this by rotation of the eye stalks, but why not...

Mind you, I think brachiation is by far the easier solution, and I do no intend to fill Furahan forests with screeching cernuators. Still, it is interesting to think about, isn't it?

This is probably the point where the rift between those who say 'yes' and the vast majority of mankind is revealed...

Brachiation versus cernuation, as well as mono- and tribrachial brachiation

I have tried to make the title of this post as obtuse as I could; I hope everyone appreciates that...

In my recent post on the marblebill, a Furahan brachiating predator, I discussed several restrictions that a brachiating lifestyle puts on an animal's body plan. Among others, those were a need for other limbs beside the swinging ones, so the animals would also be able to walk as well as climb vertical surfaces. There is of course no need to completely separate such purposes among limbs. After all, gibbons use their arms for climbing and walking as well.

I also wrote that I knew of only one other brachiating type of animal in speculative evolution, and that this was the squibbon in 'The Future is Wild'. It turns out that that statement was wrong on at least two counts. Firstly, in Dougal Dixon's 'After Man' there is a striger, a tree dwelling feline carnivore. Although its description does not stipulate brachiation, the accompanying picture certainly suggests it. There are bound to be other brachiators too somewhere in the growing field of speculative evolution. Secondly, the squibbon does not brachiate at all! It somersaults, meaning its body is upside-down at some stages in its locomotion, which is a fundamental difference with brachiation, in which the body stays upright. I should have checked that before I wrote it.

Clip from 'The Future is Wild' DVD

To illustrate the difference I have cut a short clip from 'The Future is wild' to show the squibbon's way of propulsion through the trees (easily available through Amazon etc). I know of no Earth animal that does this, so this is really a very ingenious design. Often when you try to think of a novel animal locomotion, evolution has been there and done it already. It is a pity that the designers did not give this locomotion mode a nice name. I now propose 'cernuation', derived from the verb cernuare, meaning to 'fall headfirst / dive / turn a somersault'. Cernuation does pose a problem than brachiation does not: the visual field rotates 360 degrees in each jump, which must make the job of working out where to jump at high speeds even more difficult than it already is. The placement of the squibbon's eyes near the horizontal axis around which it cernuates proves that a lot of thought has gone into this animal. Being on the axis the visual field will still rotate 360 degrees with each movement, but will not shift as much as when it would be somewhere else (there may be room for creativity here though).

The remainder of this post will deal with the number of limbs involved in brachiation. The marblebill uses just two arms for brachiation, just like gibbons and other brachiating primates. This being a blog about speculative biology, the question rises whether it can be done with other numbers of arms.

How about just one? Theoretically this is possible: the animal has to leap from one handhold to the next. There would be no way to go slowly though, as you can with two arms. Slow-moving brachiators can afford to let one arm go while the other has a firm grip. In effect, one-armed brachiation is very much the same as hopping on one leg: each hop is a jump and requires lots of energy. It would be dangerous as well.

Two arms has been dealt with, so three is next. Actually, there are three-limbed brachiators on Earth: there are brachiating monkeys using their tail as well as their hands. When I discussed walking with an odd number of limbs, I could not find any animal that did so with three legs. Tripod walking poses the problem of phase: do two legs move together while the third moves on its own, or is the cycle divided in three equal parts? In the monkey case, the starting point is bilateral symmetry: two limbs are paired and the tail is not, which suggests that an equal division of the cycle is not feasible. The other possible solution is not the case either: that would be that the two arms swing together while the tail holds a branch and vice versa. So how does it work? Essentially the monkeys alternate their arms in the usual brachiating way. The tail helps along by being placed in time with the hand, and right next to it, in fact. Moving the tail in this way may act as a safety mechanism, but has an effect on body sway as well.

Click to enlarge;

Turnquist et al; Pendular motion in the brachiation of captive Lagothrix and Ateles.

Am J Primatol 1999; 48: 263-281

The image above requires some study. If the tail is placed next to the hand, does it do so for both hands? That is indeed possible, and the tail then moves twice as often as each hand does. The authors of the paper describe the movement as 'choppy'. I suppose that this may be only known locomotion in which one limb moves at twice the frequency as other limbs do. I know of one speculative animal that does this, but was not aware of anything of the sort occurring on Earth! This is not the only solution though: some monkeys use their tail in the same frequency as their hands, to the effect that the tail only helps one hand, either the left or the right one. Odd, isn't it?

Is brachiation with more arms possible? Theoretically you could do it with four arms, and the pattern then becomes an upside-down tetrapod gait. Nothing new there.

Can you brachiate with radial symmetry? Yes; an intriguing way would be to let each successive arm take the weight. Envisage a spoked wheel and roll it: the successive spokes point to the ground one after another. Of course, this causes the body the rotate once more, and gain the body's axis of rotation is horizontal, at right angles to the direction of movement, so this is cernuation once more.

There are no cernuators on Furaha, or at least not yet. I do not think that spidrid anatomy lends itself well to moving into the trees. One or two species sometimes roll downhill on their sides to make a getaway, but that is as close as they get. I wonder about other places...