I'm still thinking about centaurs!

[conuly]

Several people have mentioned that centaurs must eat a lot to support their huge horse body AND their not-too-tiny human body.

But not all horses are huge. What if centaurs aren't big? What if the horse half is, like, a miniature horse and the human half is scaled accordingly? What does that do to their diet? Shouldn't they eat less then? Why do we assume centaurs are big?

On another note: Winged humans. How do they work? Whichever sort of wings they are - bat wings, fairy wings, angel-type wings, bird wings of another sort - is there ANY way to make that happen? In Earth gravity? I assume they have a delicate bone structure, but how do the wings even attach?

Comments

[steorra]

I just left a comment on the LJ version of this post, and was told "Success! Your comment was posted. According to the settings of this journal, it has been marked as spam." (Or something to that effect.)

[dragonwolf]

According to Wikipedia, one of the theories on the origin of the centaur mythos is a reaction of infantry-based civilizations to their first encounter with horse-based civilizations, where at a distance (and maybe close up if animals that were the right size to use as mounts were non-existent?), the man and the horse appear to be one creature. As such, they would be standard man and horse sized.

That said, I don't think centaurs would be herbavores (particularly since they are widely depecticed as being skilled with a bow), so they could consume more calorically-dense foods, thereby not needing to eat as much in volume to meet their needs. When including animal-based food sources (particularly fatty meats), it can be easy to rack up the calories.

As for the winged humans, I'll have to see if I can find archives of the discussions from the Gargoyles fandom on the topic (since the Gargoyles were typically structured the same as winged humans) with regards to their capability for flight. The general theory that I recall is a combination of a light skeleton and a "flight bladder," which would hold some lighter than air gas (probably most likely hydrogen).

Another good resource for theories on the mechanics of flight of mythical beings is Animal Planet's Dragons: Fantasy Made Real.

As for the wing structure, I'd have to go back to Gargoyles for that one, particularly for the angel-like attachment. Two theories I recall are a) two sets of shoulder blades and b) the wings attach to the existing shoulder blades. The first would provide the typical moving-wings-still-arms movement that most people imagine winged humanoids to have. The other would likely require at least some movement of the arms to facilitate the movement of the wings.

The most likely scenario would probably actually be neither, as real wings are the creature's arms (note the bone structure of birds and bats), or use to arm to control body-attached membranes (ala flying squirrels). Therefore, the creature's wing structure would likely look more like World of Warcraft's proto drake or Gargoyles' Lexington.

[conuly]

Well, Lexington WAS always one of the cooler characters, but I want humans with wings. Also, a jetpack, but that's a little superfluous.

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering for years why gryphons aren't housecat-sized.

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

I've read -- I don't recall where, though -- that the popular perception of flying humans with wings on their backs just would not work. Something to do with muscle and bone structure.

The only centaurs I'm familiar with are the ones in Xena. They were about the size of average, not miniature, horses. I read a short story once that described centaurs that had been genetically engineered to have two sets of genitalia, both human and horse. This has got me wondering whether their human parts could defecate, and if so, where their human anal opening would be.

[conuly]

I've read -- I don't recall where, though -- that the popular perception of flying humans with wings on their backs just would not work. Something to do with muscle and bone structure.

I've heard that too, and frankly I can't think where the wings would attach.

read a short story once that described centaurs that had been genetically engineered to have two sets of genitalia, both human and horse. This has got me wondering whether their human parts could defecate, and if so, where their human anal opening would be.

The author didn't really work that out, did they?

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

No, it wasn't well worked-out at all. The story was that a male centaur could mount a female centaur as a stallion would, and at the same time, with his human genitals, penetrate a female human lying on the back of the female centaur. But I'd think he would be rather likely to crush the female human doing that. At the same time, a male centaur and female centaur could have sex face-to-face with their human genitals. So they could have a four-way.

[conuly]

Well, I suppose that answers why they'd want to do this...!

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I think I read that story--Elfleda, wasn't it?

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

It's been so long since I've read the story, I don't remember the name, only that it was in an anthology of short stories called Unicorns!, which I cannot find on Amazon or in the library catalogue.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I own that anthology--it was indeed the story I'm remembering, although now doubt enters my mind as to whether Elfleda was the title or just a character name.

It's in storage, but I'll see if I can get you the ISBN number.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

I wonder how centaurs eat a lot. A horse body needs to be grazing for most of the day to keep going. The digestive system to handle this is there in the horse body, but the horse mouth and teeth to do that part of the job aren't there, and human teeth aren't going to be adequate.

[conuly]

Well, of course, grass is just not that great a source of energy. That's part of why horses have to eat so much.

Maybe if we completely redesigned them from the ground up? We'd keep the main idea, but totally redo the innards?

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Centaurs have eyes that both face forwards for binocular vision. That implies either part of their ancestors' lives spent swinging through the trees, like humans did (I think not!) or... predator. Centaurs are known to be archers. I think we have carnivorous centaurs, and I also think I would not like to be their prey.

[conuly]

Well, is centaurs eating human flesh considered cannibalism? It seems like it to me. Ew.

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

Assuming earth gravity, for people with wings, they'd technically need to ditch the arms (since that's what wings are). For arms + wings, they'd need a second set of pectorals (which looks funny, heehee). In order to fly, the wingspan on a averaged sized person would be enormous, even accounting for a lighter bone structure. The wings would drag on the ground no matter what type they were (which would damage the feathers which would make it harder to fly--oh DEAR.). For cute decorative wings, well, do whatever!)

[conuly]

Maybe bug-type wings? Like Tinkerbell? (Of course, Tinkerbell ought to freeze to death. I don't know why I'm even bringing her up. She's not big enough to survive with THAT body shape.)

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

But Tinkerbell's a fairy. Fairies should be out of this conversation. (And she didn't really look like that, either.)

[conuly]

At any rate, let's not have feathers. Bats don't have them, so let's move from there.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

I read a scifi fic once that explained that the geneered human winged-types were short (averaged around five feet tall), hollow bones came into it, and they looked stocky because of the extra musculature & skeletal support around the torso for the (batlike, thinly-furred) wings.

They also ate like loggers because their metabolism was birdlike as well.

[conuly]

They also ate like loggers because their metabolism was birdlike as well.

Well, yeah. Smaller creatures eat proportionately more to keep warm, and flying takes lots of calories as well.

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

Discounting feathers, basics would still apply. If you want the wings coming from the back, secondary set of pectorals, otherwise upper and lower arm bones shortened and hand bones dramatically lengthened (which would be the case for feathers, too, but no feathers. :>). Wingspan would still be enormous, but bat wings tend to be more flexible than bird wings, so a batman (...yeah, no, I'm leaving that there, it's funny) could keep them off the ground pretty well. Walking would be compromised with folded wings, though, since the legs would probably be pretty well encased. Shoulder and chest muscles would likely be significantly larger and...hey, I wonder if bat people would learn basic echolocation? That'd be neat!

[conuly]

hey, I wonder if bat people would learn basic echolocation?

Well, humans already have the capacity to learn basic echolocation. It's not very common, and the few I know about who have done so have been all blind, but it's definitely possible for the highly motivated human to echolocate.

Walking would be compromised with folded wings, though, since the legs would probably be pretty well encased.

If the wings were larger maybe they could crease more and... allow more mobility?

And we're basically saying that human hands are a no go, right? We'd have to replace grasping functionality with something else. Bats can hold things with their wings, and if toes were made more grasp-y...?

But at that point, we're talking giant bats that can talk. There's not much human left with this much change. Logic and biology are ruining all my dreams!

[darkpoole.livejournal.com]

Well, just assume six limbs somehow. A "forward" set of arms for manipulation and a "rear" set of wings. Which means pretty complex shoulders and a bunch of extra bones that mammals just don't have. Not sure how that happens in the first place, but go with it.

Flying might be possible if the wings were large enough. The biggest pterosaurs probably weighed more than we did. However, that would mean wings that fold out probably ten to twelve feet on each side, and stretched skin that connects all the way down the sides to the ankles. It would make wearing clothes a bit of a challenge.

[conuly]

Well, we're able to hangglide, so with big enough wings we SHOULD be able to do the same, I would think. The trouble is having big enough wings!

Wearing clothes a challenge... hm... yeah, I'm not seeing how that can be fixed without ending flight. So they'd live someplace warm. Or be really furry. But no, fur adds weight....

[darkpoole.livejournal.com]

They could wear something anchored over the shoulders and under the groin to help with core temperature, but couldn't do much for the limbs. Boots, maybe. And gloves for the hands. And they could wrap the wings around themselves, bat-style, to stay warm at night. But yeah, they'd need to live in warmer climates, and maybe have limbs that are fairly resistant to cold.

Or, yeah, fur is an option. I think some pterosaurs were pretty hairy (although not actual "hair" but a hair-like covering that evolved independently), and there are plenty of furry bats around today.

[steorra (from livejournal.com)]

I've actually been teaching myself a bit of really basic echolocation. I'm not really good enough for it to be any use - basically, I can hear where buildings are, to some degree the rough size/shape of a room from inside, and occasionally but inconsistently smaller nearby objects such as a hedge or telephone pole or tree as I walk by.

Also, the largest flying bird for which we have evidence is thought to have had a 7 metre / 23 foot wingspan, and to have a roughly human-sized weight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentavis

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Zilpha Keatley Snyder touched on some of these issues in Black and Blue Magic. She didn't get too technical, but said that when the kid had wings he also had "new muscles, or muscles moving in some new way, across his back and chest." To stay warm up there he made a kind of robe thing out of old curtains. He was thinking more like a toga, but of course some little kid spotted him.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Magical creatures are magical because they wouldn't function without magic - defined as "that undefined Special Something that allows the ordinarily impossible".

Ordinarily, nothing human-sized can fly on its own wings on this planet, for the same reason we'll never have to worry about spiders the size of wolves: the Gravity Police don't permit. The heaviest flying bird is the Great Bustard, 44 lbs. max. and would rather run than fly; the heaviest pteranodon was 55 lbs. maz, more a glider than a true flyer. The heaviest bat is only about 5 lbs max, because the mammalian brain requires a lot of oxygen, and the mammalian cardiovascular system isn't efficient enough to keep it satisfied AND lift much weight into the air.

The oxygen requirement is the same reason mammals can't have hollow bones, but even if they could, it wouldn't help in the case of a human-sized would-be flyer, because before the bones were light enough, they'd be too frail to support the body, and there would still be no place for the Necessary Dorsal Muscles to attach.

It wouldn't be that difficult to alter a humanoid arm into a bat-like wing, like Winnowill did for Tyldak (http://www.comicartcommunity.com/gallery/details.php?image_id=40509&sessionid=7900b2e902058bc6803e52493b14cdc9). Note that Tyldak could already fly by means of his magic before his body was altered; the wings just gave him increased range and stamina. Without the magic, he'd never have gotten off the ground.

[conuly]

Magical creatures are magical because they wouldn't function without magic - defined as "that undefined Special Something that allows the ordinarily impossible".

Well, yes, but what about sci-fi books that take these guys as inspiration for other-planet lifeforms or genetically engineered people? Can that be reconciled with real life? (Sadly, I'm coming to the conclusion that it can't. Not on earth, anyway.)

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Not on Earth, no. If the other-planet life-forms come from a planet with lower gravity, denser atmosphere and a higher oxygen level, so that it's possible for someone human-weight to fly without requiring a 23-foot wingspan and a breastbone like a ship's keel, they not only couldn't fly on Earth - they'd be crushed by our gravity and asphyxiated by our thin atmosphere.

This is just one of the many glaring scientific impossibilities in John Norman's Gor books: Gor supposedly does have slightly less gravity and a slightly richer atmosphere than Earth, but not enough to allow for giant hawks capable of carrying multiple people for long distances. (Don't even get me started about the orbital parameters of Gor, sheesh!)

It might be possible to genetically engineer humans to have a 23-foot wingspan instead of arms, drastically lighter bones, a drastically-enhanced cardiovascular system, and a breast-bone like a boat-keel for the wing-muscles to attach to. But what would be the point? They'd be extremely fragile; they wouldn't have useful arms or hands; they wouldn't look anything like humans; they'd probably be of very low intelligence due to the oxygen-use problem, and they STILL wouldn't be efficient flyers.

If one wanted to genetically engineer a flyer with human-equivalent intelligence and communication abilities, it would make a lot more sense to start with ravens or parrots and work up.

[conuly]

If you're reading the Gor books for the science, might I suggest that you're approaching them from the wrong angle entirely?

But what would be the point?

Mad science? Again, if you're looking for a point besides "sheer awesomeness" you're probably not looking at it right.

Not that they'd really be that awesome, alas.

If one wanted to genetically engineer a flyer with human-equivalent intelligence and communication abilities, it would make a lot more sense to start with ravens or parrots and work up.

Now there's an idea! Can we give them hands? Or make them bigger, anyway?