What's wrong with bunny hands on dinosaurs? (2018)(paleoaerie.org)
paleoaerie.org
What's wrong with bunny hands on dinosaurs? (2018)
https://paleoaerie.org/2018/06/13/whats-wrong-with-bunny-hands-on-dinosaurs/
14 comments
This would make for a good topic on a short-form pop-science YouTube channel. (take your pick)
The article is interesting but it's difficult for me to really picture the implications of the article. Actually after reading it I get the feeling that what I was visualizing is entirely contrary to what they are trying to convey to me.
The article is interesting but it's difficult for me to really picture the implications of the article. Actually after reading it I get the feeling that what I was visualizing is entirely contrary to what they are trying to convey to me.
What exactly is "bunny hands"? I'm having difficulty picturing it.
https://www.alamy.com/portrait-of-funny-lovely-european-girl...
> Portrait of funny, lovely European girl with rabbit ears, imitating bunny, holding hands like paws and looking up daydreaming
They are referring to the pose people take when they are pretending to pose "like a bunny".
> Portrait of funny, lovely European girl with rabbit ears, imitating bunny, holding hands like paws and looking up daydreaming
They are referring to the pose people take when they are pretending to pose "like a bunny".
At one point it says “fully pronated like we can, or bunnies can”, which sounds like a reference to actual rabbits, but some quick Googling suggests that rabbits don’t pronate? (I know nothing about the subject myself.)
I don't really understand what "pronating" is supposed to mean if you're not referring to human hands. This isn't a problem for the phrase "bunny hands", which refers to human hands.
But for, say, human feet, "pronation" would appear to refer to a position in which the soles of the feet face toward the ground, just as in hands it refers to a position in which the palms face toward the ground, or in humans overall it refers to a position in which the face and belly face toward the ground. That is the meaning of "prone" ("lying on your front"; it is the opposite of supine, "lying on your back"), and "pronation" just means "making something be prone".
But obviously all feet are always pronated in this sense. The article seems to have a model of the word which is more like "pronation [in the hands] involves a certain configuration of the bones in the arm, and I'm going to call that configuration pronation too". But then they also refer to rotating the forearm, which confuses bone configuration with yet another issue, the changeability of the configuration.†
So I'm left mystified as to how this single-or-possibly-manifold concept is supposed to apply to feet, human or otherwise. The article suggests that pronat_ed_ feet have the toes facing forward, parallel to the direction of the gaze, and also that pronat_ing_ feet requires the ability to rotate the lower part of the leg.
In humans, these claims cannot both be true. Toes are angled forward, but the lower leg doesn't rotate. Something else has happened.
So it's hard to say what I should conclude about the mammoth legs that the article also complains about.
† The article complains about a dinosaur skeleton in which the hands aren't pronated - they face inwards, in a pose we might call "karate chop hands". But it says that this pose requires "pronation" in what is presumably the arm-bones sense. In "bunny hands", the hands are pronated according to the normal definition of the word, facing the ground.
But for, say, human feet, "pronation" would appear to refer to a position in which the soles of the feet face toward the ground, just as in hands it refers to a position in which the palms face toward the ground, or in humans overall it refers to a position in which the face and belly face toward the ground. That is the meaning of "prone" ("lying on your front"; it is the opposite of supine, "lying on your back"), and "pronation" just means "making something be prone".
But obviously all feet are always pronated in this sense. The article seems to have a model of the word which is more like "pronation [in the hands] involves a certain configuration of the bones in the arm, and I'm going to call that configuration pronation too". But then they also refer to rotating the forearm, which confuses bone configuration with yet another issue, the changeability of the configuration.†
So I'm left mystified as to how this single-or-possibly-manifold concept is supposed to apply to feet, human or otherwise. The article suggests that pronat_ed_ feet have the toes facing forward, parallel to the direction of the gaze, and also that pronat_ing_ feet requires the ability to rotate the lower part of the leg.
In humans, these claims cannot both be true. Toes are angled forward, but the lower leg doesn't rotate. Something else has happened.
So it's hard to say what I should conclude about the mammoth legs that the article also complains about.
† The article complains about a dinosaur skeleton in which the hands aren't pronated - they face inwards, in a pose we might call "karate chop hands". But it says that this pose requires "pronation" in what is presumably the arm-bones sense. In "bunny hands", the hands are pronated according to the normal definition of the word, facing the ground.
Looks like you need to be careful with the definition of pronation and supination for feet. There's a lot of results for running where they use the term dynamically, and it looks to be different from the original technical meaning.
You can look at images here (be careful to only look at images where it is obvious whether it is a left foot or a right foot, otherwise you'll be doubly confused): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pronating+feet&ia=images&iax=image...
For hands you can see the twisting more clearly: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pronating+hands&ia=images&iax=imag...
For feet, the word pronating seems to also mean (perhaps colloquially) rolling the foot inwards at the ankle. Not clear at all: although some of the images show twisting the shin or not (toe in vs duck feet).
You can look at images here (be careful to only look at images where it is obvious whether it is a left foot or a right foot, otherwise you'll be doubly confused): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pronating+feet&ia=images&iax=image...
For hands you can see the twisting more clearly: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pronating+hands&ia=images&iax=imag...
For feet, the word pronating seems to also mean (perhaps colloquially) rolling the foot inwards at the ankle. Not clear at all: although some of the images show twisting the shin or not (toe in vs duck feet).
Stand up and try to hold your arms out in front of you, with the palms facing straight down.
You'll find that this is a little awkward. The natural resting position of your hands is with the palms facing inwards, not down.
You'll find that this is a little awkward. The natural resting position of your hands is with the palms facing inwards, not down.
So if I understand right, this image of a T-Rex [1] would be wrong, because its palms are facing downward, while this image of a T-Rex [2] would be right because its palms are in a "clapping" posture?
But I'm still a little confused. Most quadrupeds have their front toes facing forward, right? If the first T-Rex did a belly-flop and caught itself on its palms, they'd be facing forward like a dog's. If the second T-Rex did a belly flop, its toes would be facing outward, like Charlie Chaplin's feet.
1. https://geppettostoybox.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/trex....
2. https://s3.envato.com/files/471149443/Realistic%20Trex%20Din...
But I'm still a little confused. Most quadrupeds have their front toes facing forward, right? If the first T-Rex did a belly-flop and caught itself on its palms, they'd be facing forward like a dog's. If the second T-Rex did a belly flop, its toes would be facing outward, like Charlie Chaplin's feet.
1. https://geppettostoybox.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/trex....
2. https://s3.envato.com/files/471149443/Realistic%20Trex%20Din...
I agree with the article (well, the sauropod tracks in the article) that the natural resting position of your arm as you extend it forward has your palms mostly downward and a little inward. Fully downward is much, much more natural than fully inward.
Oh, that helps me. I thought it had something to do with rotating the palm. Why did they go into all the detail of the ulna & radius crossing?
The counter example they gave was the elephant - but this video [1] of elephants walking looks to me like "bunny hands", at least to a degree.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf1K63tc1bY
The counter example they gave was the elephant - but this video [1] of elephants walking looks to me like "bunny hands", at least to a degree.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf1K63tc1bY
That video has such terrible image quality that it isn't possible to see the elephants' toes.
Strangely, for me, downward is more restful than inward. Must be the decades of keyboard use ...
Yes, I cant see in the article that actually define the term!
Playlist of the original videos: <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaCDmykyjVw_B983AQ2iG...>, there's a channel now <https://www.youtube.com/@YourDinosaursAreWrong> which has newer episodes (can't vouch for, haven't seen) (playlist with old and (some of the) new: <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnpbQOy7TfC179wPmhHZr...>)