193 réponses à ce sujet

[Megatron 1]

Megatron 1 wrote...

I'm surprised that no one ever seems to point out how it looks like there is a VERY human-like reflection of Tali's chin, and maybe part of her lips. Look in the upper left corner of the inside of her mask in this pic.

Looks like a reflection of the bottom of her face to me..... Maybe this will finally put a stop to all the speculation of ridiculous mandible's and such..

Sorry.... I was having problems gettig the pic up..... it's working now.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Took me a second but I can see what you are talking about

[Megatron 1]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Took me a second but I can see what you are talking about

Thanks... Some people here at home didn't see it right away either, but once you see it, it's really easy to see.

[Qwepir]

Shandepared wrote...

No, their legs are not digitrade. Digitrade would mean that quarians walk on their tip-toes, however it is clear that they walk on the soles of their feet. Easy to make that mistake though since for some reason in both games Tali insists on standing on her tip-toes on the character select screen.

Gah, I knew that wasn't quite right. I meant that their leg structure is significantly different than that of humans.

[GOYAFIDO]

Shandepared wrote...

Suilebhain wrote...

Someone said that quarians are human-like. Not sure about that. They have backwards knees, like cats and birds, and only three fingers/toes.

They do not have backwards knees and they are not digitrade. What they have is curved shins.

The reason so many folks think quarians are digitigrade is because they almost are.

Almost.

While quarians are indeed not digitigrade, niether are they plantigrade.

They are semi-digitigrade.

Quarians just have REALLY big toes.  Take a look at how deep into their feet the split between the toes goes.  Quarians are space ninjas that can pull your eyeballs out of your head with one kick.

Humans are plantigrade meaning we walk on the entire structure of tarsals, metatarsals and phalanges (toes).

Dogs and similar animals are digitigrade meaning they walk only on their phalanges.
 
Being
semi-digitigrade quarians walk on their phalanges and the front part of
their metatarsals.  (The tarsals might be fused together to better support
weight and distribute energy.) To simplify things let's just say what
appears to be the heel is really the ball of their foot.  If they
lifted their "heels" when walking/running they would be digitigrade. 
So yes their knees are just where they should be and their shins are
quite straight and quite short.  In fact the shins end and the ankle
begins just behind the top of their leg guards just as one would expect in this case.

Enough of the "curved shins" business already.  They make no sense structurally, assuming quarian bone, muscle and ligaments are similar to humans.

(Small edit for clarity.)

Modifié par GOYAFIDO, 19 mars 2010 - 07:03 .

[Xandurpein]

And Tali in all probablility has reasonably soft human like lips. You can see the general outline of her mouth in some angles and there is a very definitely a sound of a kiss at the end of the 'bed scene' when Tali jumps Shepard.

[cruc1al]

Collider wrote...

Quarians have an endoskeleton, lips, teeth, and two eyes with eyelids and tear ducts; and evolved from mammals. That's all we know conclusively, although I may have read that they do not have hair according to ascension.

Evolved from mammals? You mean they're actually evolutionarily related to us, as in we share a common mammalian ancestor with them? If they just resemble mammals but are not evolutionarily related, you can't call them mammals because that name is reserved for Earth mammals (at least in the real world).

[iNixiRir]

Megatron 1 wrote...

Megatron 1 wrote...

I'm surprised that no one ever seems to point out how it looks like there is a VERY human-like reflection of Tali's chin, and maybe part of her lips. Look in the upper left corner of the inside of her mask in this pic.

Looks like a reflection of the bottom of her face to me..... Maybe this will finally put a stop to all the speculation of ridiculous mandible's and such..

Sorry.... I was having problems gettig the pic up..... it's working now.

I don't see it at all. Not that it matters so much for me though, because I already know they look more human than Ugly Shepard.

[GodWood]

cruc1al wrote...

Collider wrote...
Quarians have an endoskeleton, lips, teeth, and two eyes with eyelids and tear ducts; and evolved from mammals. That's all we know conclusively, although I may have read that they do not have hair according to ascension.

Evolved from mammals? You mean they're actually evolutionarily related to us, as in we share a common mammalian ancestor with them? If they just resemble mammals but are not evolutionarily related, you can't call them mammals because that name is reserved for Earth mammals (at least in the real world).

I've seen a lot of people saying this lately and it is simply incorrect.

Despite being from a completely different planet it is still possible to categorize the alien species into things like mammals, insects, reptiles etc.

Here is what a mammal is : "Mammals are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain.
Mammals are divided into three main infraclass taxa depending how they are born. These taxa are: monotremes, marsupials and placentals. Except for the five species of monotremes (which lay eggs), all mammal species give birth to live young. Most mammals also possess specialized teeth, and the largest group of mammals, the placentals, use a placenta during gestation. The mammalian brain regulates endothermic and circulatory systems, including a four-chambered heart."

Now none of those things require a common ancestor from earth or anything specific like that, all it requires is certain biological traits and bam you can categorize it into pretty much any Earth classification.

[Raphael diSanto]

While discussion of what Quarians look like is fun and all, I definitely think we shouldn't take any of the IG details visible as canon. I always assumed BioWare threw a PH head module under the mask just to put -something- there.

[cruc1al]

GodWood wrote...

cruc1al wrote...

Collider wrote...
Quarians have an endoskeleton, lips, teeth, and two eyes with eyelids and tear ducts; and evolved from mammals. That's all we know conclusively, although I may have read that they do not have hair according to ascension.

Evolved from mammals? You mean they're actually evolutionarily related to us, as in we share a common mammalian ancestor with them? If they just resemble mammals but are not evolutionarily related, you can't call them mammals because that name is reserved for Earth mammals (at least in the real world).

I've seen a lot of people saying this lately and it is simply incorrect.

Despite being from a completely different planet it is still possible to categorize the alien species into things like mammals, insects, reptiles etc.

Here is what a mammal is : "Mammals are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain.
Mammals are divided into three main infraclass taxa depending how they are born. These taxa are: monotremes, marsupials and placentals. Except for the five species of monotremes (which lay eggs), all mammal species give birth to live young. Most mammals also possess specialized teeth, and the largest group of mammals, the placentals, use a placenta during gestation. The mammalian brain regulates endothermic and circulatory systems, including a four-chambered heart."

Now none of those things require a common ancestor from earth or anything specific like that, all it requires is certain biological traits and bam you can categorize it into pretty much any Earth classification.

(You didn't give a source. Anyway...) Two types of classification can be used in biology: monophyletic and paraphyletic. Monophyletic refers to a group which contains the common ancestor and all its descendent species. Paraphyletic refers to a group similar to monophyletic but it does not contain all descendent species. The use of paraphyletic classification is not useful in biology exactly because it doesn't include the whole evolutionary lineage; usually such groups are remnants of earlier classifications that used to be thought of as monophyletic. There is no scientific way to classify species which do not share a common ancestor, as no such classification makes sense. Biology makes sense only in light of evolution.

This is wikipedia's first sentence on "Animals": "Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa"

First, Eukaryotes or Eukaryota are a monophyletic group - eukaryotes share a common ancestor. Secondly, Animals or Animalia or Metazoa are a monophyletic group. Scientifically, no species that does not share the common ancestor of the monophyletic group Animalia can be called an animal, no matter how closely it resembles actual animals in its characteristics. It must share ancestry for the simple reason that if it doesn't, it must be part of some other evolutionary group, and that other group must have a name other than Animals.

The same applies to mammals, insects, reptiles (reptiles is actually often used in a paraphyletic way to exclude birds, unfortunately), or any monophyletic biological taxon.

Take another example: humans. Humans (genus ******) is a monophyletic group. It originated on Earth and no species that does not share the same common ancestor can be called human. You wouldn't call Quarians human, would you? They share so many characteristics with us that you "could" call them human by the same argument you "could" call them mammals, but since we know they don't share a human common ancestor, we'll call them humanoid. Not human. In this respect you can call turians "reptiloid" and asari "mammaloid" if you wish, but don't call them reptiles and mammals because they're not.

Modifié par cruc1al, 19 mars 2010 - 03:05 .

[Tooneyman]

ok this last conversation got a little way to advnaced and nerdy for me, but still Tali has always looked human like through the mask nothing more nothing less.

[cruc1al]

I'm 2 n3rdy 4 u! I actually study biology, so I tend to get a bit carried away on the topic

[Mcjon01]

cruc1al wrote...

(You didn't give a source. Anyway...) Two types of classification can be used in biology: monophyletic and paraphyletic. Monophyletic refers to a group which contains the common ancestor and all its descendent species. Paraphyletic refers to a group similar to monophyletic but it does not contain all descendent species. The use of paraphyletic classification is not useful in biology exactly because it doesn't include the whole evolutionary lineage; usually such groups are remnants of earlier classifications that used to be thought of as monophyletic. There is no scientific way to classify species which do not share a common ancestor, as no such classification makes sense. Biology makes sense only in light of evolution.

This is wikipedia's first sentence on "Animals": "Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa"

First, Eukaryotes or Eukaryota are a monophyletic group - eukaryotes share a common ancestor. Secondly, Animals or Animalia or Metazoa are a monophyletic group. Scientifically, no species that does not share the common ancestor of the monophyletic group Animalia can be called an animal, no matter how closely it resembles actual animals in its characteristics. It must share ancestry for the simple reason that if it doesn't, it must be part of some other evolutionary group, and that other group must have a name other than Animals.

The same applies to mammals, insects, reptiles (reptiles is actually often used in a paraphyletic way to exclude birds, unfortunately), or any monophyletic biological taxon.

Take another example: humans. Humans (genus ******) is a monophyletic group. It originated on Earth and no species that does not share the same common ancestor can be called human. You wouldn't call Quarians human, would you? They share so many characteristics with us that you "could" call them human by the same argument you "could" call them mammals, but since we know they don't share a human common ancestor, we'll call them humanoid. Not human. In this respect you can call turians "reptiloid" and asari "mammaloid" if you wish, but don't call them reptiles and mammals because they're not.

I can see a Salarian trying to explain this to a human in the future.  I can also see that human staring at him blankly, then countering with an argument about how Salarians are very clearly a bunch of weird frog people.

[cruc1al]

Mcjon01 wrote...

I can see a Salarian trying to explain this to a human in the future.  I can also see that human staring at him blankly, then countering with an argument about how Salarians are very clearly a bunch of weird frog people.

Something to do with my profile picture?

[GOYAFIDO]

Shandepared wrote...

As far as I can see their legs are the same as ours except for how the shin connects to the knee. With the terminology you throw around you might be far more knowledgable about this than I am. If so, I'll shut up.

I'm curious, are you a medical student or something?

You know it's probably not healthy to keep staring at Tali's feet like this. She's probably very uncomfortable with all this attention.

I am neither a medical professional nor a student but I did study some biology, chemistry and physics in college and I have always been interested in it on a hobby level.  Plus, anytime I decide to post stuff like lthis I try to find reliable resources as a refresher and reminder in case I don't remember correctly...

The first thing to consider beyond aesthetic considerations is:  Bones with that much curve would need to be MUCH thicker to have similar strength and support characteristics as straight bones.  (Check the interwebz and see how many curved leg bones you find.)  Bones like that are straight in humans and animals, both to hang muscle and ligaments off of but also to provide leverage for those muscles as well as transmit and absorb energy so we aren't breaking dem bones all the time.  Bones are not quite as rigid as most folks think while they are alive.  They actually flex a little bit, otherwise we would have a lot more stress fractures and worse.

If you were trying to break a small relatively straight stick you likely wouldn't bang it straight into the ground.  You'd take the ends and bend the stick until it breaks somewhere towards the middle because it's much easier.  The same thing applies to bones.  Also, take another stick you are unable to do the simple bendy thing with and see how much thicker it is than the stick you broke.

The second thing is:  Again, the reason so many people are thinking digitigrade is because quarian leg structure LOOKS digitigrade right up until you see that heel-looking thing on the floor.  Lift it off the floor and there would be no questions.  Did I mention the REALLY long toes?

In closing:

Semi-digitigrade locomotion exists in real life and assuming analogous skeletal structure, what we see of quarian leg structure meets the criteria making semi-digitigrade locomotion totally plausible.   Look at the position of the outside vestigial toe.  It's just where it should be if the "heel" is actually the "ball" of the foot.

Occam's Razor in action.

Curved shins in real life are a bad thing and to my limited knowledge curved shins don't exist in real life outside of genetic defects, disease, malnutrition or injury etc.  The bones would just be too weak.  That makes curved shins wildly implausible.

Can we get back to eyes, ears, hair and skin color now?...

(Yes I'm a bit of a nerd...)

 

Modifié par GOYAFIDO, 19 mars 2010 - 07:01 .

[Schroing]

They -seem- to have two knees, if that's how you would describe it. A normal joint, and then another immediately beneath it.

[GOYAFIDO]

Exactly. There's another joint in that there leg guard. It's their ankle just like on a dog or wolf. Their equivalent tibia and fibula terminate near the top of the leg guard. Just google "digitigrade" and you will see what I mean. Actually just get a diagram of a human leg and count the joints and you will see how they correspond. What would be the calf muscles in a human extend from the normally placed knee and terminate at the ankle behind the upper part of the leg guard. Furthermore it also just occurs to me that the ankle being inside the leg guard is the reason it has all that space around the top of it to allow for flexion of the joint. Otherwise it could just be tight on the leg. (I know this all mindless speculation about a non-existent species but I am doing some world and species building for writing a book and filling the blanks in on quarians seems like good practice and for me.  They should be at least somewhat consistent with life as we know it since they exhibit so many similar characteristics. I can always tweak the facts and change the names when I am done.)

Modifié par GOYAFIDO, 19 mars 2010 - 07:40 .