Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lynata wrote:
Seriously? "Deerlike"? Add two digits and you have a human foot.

No, not at all look at the lay out, there is no heel, no lower ankle, now look at how a deer or some of the per historic hooves beasts lower limbs happen to be formed. That is missing a few key parts to be a primate limb, it is very much in line with a hooved limb. Y0u are simply stuck on them looking one and only one way, which is incorrect. An elephants hooves do not look like what you claim a hoof must look like.

A simple web search would show you some Hooves that do not look all that far removed.

 Lynata wrote:

I'd like some enlightenment on which sources you are basing your "fact" on now. What is a fact is that it looks nothing alike what GW has come up with. Again, look at the images above.

Again which GW images? They have shown about five types of hooves, GW sucks at the very concept of canon. The one I linked would not fall under what you are calling a hoof, but is in fact a type of hoof..

Hunterindarkness wrote:No, not at all look at the lay out, there is no heel, no lower ankle, now look at how a deer or some of the per historic hooves beasts lower limbs happen to be formed. That is missing a few key parts to be a primate limb, it is very much in line with a hooved limb. Y0u are simply stuck on them looking one and only one way, which is incorrect. An elephants hooves do not look like what you claim a hoof must look like.
A simple web search would show you some Hooves that do not look all that far removed.

So by your wording, a Velociraptor would have hooves because it doesn't have a heel in ground contact. Gotcha.
Sheesh.

As far as elephants are concerned, they are actually near-ungulates, not ungulates, as it has toenails rather than proper hooves, yet they are still in contact with the ground.
The Xenology Tau's foot shows none of the characteristics connected to hooves. At all.

Feel free to prove me wrong, though. If it's such a simple web search, I'm sure you can manage. I've shown some obvious similarities between the Xenology Tau's and the Human foot with images as well, after all. I've linked various pictures of feet, actually. It's on you to produce some evidence to back up your position if you really want to continue this silly debate.

Lynata wrote:Again which GW images? They have shown about five types of hooves, GW sucks at the very concept of canon. The one I linked would not fall under what you are calling a hoof, but is in fact a type of hoof..

First off, you are incorrect. Elephants are indeed ungulates, of the Proboscidea type. One of six sub types, of which horses are Perissodactyla. Dude at lest wikipedia it for the love of him on terra! The term is not near-uggulates, but sunglates, I get you only think a horse hoof is a true hoof, but dude, you are wrong here.

Also again i am gonna disagree with you on the foot, you are seeing "toe nails and trying to make it into something it is not. It is laying flat, a foot with a heel can not do that. They stand on thier toes from the image in that pic, which is just what an Ungulate does. Take a real good look at something like Hyracotherium.


On the image, It came from a book called "The Art of Warhammer 40,000" from page 239 it seems.

Hunterindarkness wrote:First off, you are incorrect. Elephants are indeed ungulates, of the Proboscidea type. One of six sub types, of which horses are Perissodactyla. Dude at lest wikipedia it for the love of him on terra! The term is not near-uggulates, but sunglates, I get you only think a horse hoof is a true hoof, but dude, you are wrong here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paenungulata

...

And just in case it's not obvious .. "paene" is Latin for "almost" or "nearly". Generally, I would also advise not to trust wikipedia alone, for just like any wiki, everybody and his mum can edit it, and during the recent research I did (contrary to what y'all seem to be thinking I am not pulling this out of thin air) I also noticed that some pages on the subject are different in the English and the German language. As such it is always better to look at other pages as well.
I couldn't resist linking the wiki article, however. Not after your accusation that I should "just wikipedia it".

Hunterindarkness wrote:Also again i am gonna disagree with you on the foot, you are seeing "toe nails and trying to make it into something it is not. It is laying flat, a foot with a heel can not do that. They stand on thier toes from the image in that pic, which is just what an Ungulate does. Take a real good look at something like Hyracotherium.

The extinct hyracotherium did not have hooves.
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html

Again, if just "standing on their toes" is what defines an ungulate, then a cat's or a dog's hind leg is a hoof, too. Ridiculous. There are proper definitions and established distinctions differentiating between hooves and toenails - and whilst it is true that "standing on their toes" is one factor, the evolution* of said toes into possessing a protective sheath (the hoof) capable of safely supporting the creature is the actual key element. Which is missing from the Xenology Tau, who has normal toenails just like a human being.

Must be one of my crazier debates I had on dakka. But at least we learned something.

Hunterindarkness wrote:On the image, It came from a book called "The Art of Warhammer 40,000" from page 239 it seems.

Thank you.

Perhaps omitted artwork from the first Tau Codex? Some images in there are quite similar, although this one looks much more crisp.

Seriously?!?! A two page string of posts on hooves. You got to be kidding me.

All I was asking is if the Xenology book was a good read.

 amrogers3 wrote:
Seriously?!?! A two page string of posts on hooves. You got to be kidding me.

All I was asking is if the Xenology book was a good read.

Welcome to Dakka.

Hey, it's the internets.

But regardless of my criticism, I stand by my final verdict: Yes, it is.

Lynata wrote:The extinct hyracotherium did not have hooves.
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage03.html

Again, if just "standing on their toes" is what defines an ungulate, then a cat's or a dog's hind leg is a hoof, too. Ridiculous. There are proper definitions and established distinctions differentiating between hooves and toenails - and whilst it is true that "standing on their toes" is one factor, the evolution* of said toes into possessing a protective sheath (the hoof) capable of safely supporting the creature is the actual key element. Which is missing from the Xenology Tau, who has normal toenails just like a human being.

Must be one of my crazier debates I had on dakka. But at least we learned something.

Are you Zoologist?

Lynata wrote:Which is missing from the Xenology Tau, who has normal toenails just like a human being.

How do you know the composition of Tau foot protusions?
Are they kerotin?
Are they bone?


I don't remember Xenology elaborating on Tau feet.

Why have we not discussed the possibility of them being Claws? Perhaps in proper tau society it is unfashionable to let ones claws grow out. And our subject, although enslaved has not wavered in areas of personal hygiene.

Since most of the literature associated with the Tau is written from an Imperial viewpoint, such a matter as foot care may have been overlooked.

 Lynata wrote:

And just in case it's not obvious .. "paene" is Latin for "almost" or "nearly". Generally, I would also advise not to trust wikipedia alone, for just like any wiki, everybody and his mum can edit it, and during the recent research I did (contrary to what y'all seem to be thinking I am not pulling this out of thin air) I also noticed that some pages on the subject are different in the English and the German language. As such it is always better to look at other pages as well.
I couldn't resist linking the wiki article, however. Not after your accusation that I should "just wikipedia it".

Correct on the naming, however that still makes them count as Hooves. The naming is a scientific thing, which has changed a few times in the never ending quest to classify what came from which thingybob. Elephants still have hooves, they are called hooves.

 Lynata wrote:

Again, if just "standing on their toes" is what defines an ungulate, then a cat's or a dog's hind leg is a hoof, too. Ridiculous. There are proper definitions and established distinctions differentiating between hooves and toenails - and whilst it is true that "standing on their toes" is one factor, the evolution* of said toes into possessing a protective sheath (the hoof) capable of safely supporting the creature is the actual key element. Which is missing from the Xenology Tau, who has normal toenails just like a human being.

Its not just standing on the toes, you are correct, however that image lacks a heel. Standing on the toes is something many early Ungulants and yes near Unglants share. And you do not know they are toenails, you simply think they look like them. Some hooved critters do have toenail looking hooves ( see camel). You simply dislike how it looks, even though it is inline with what could be called a hoof, even more so as its a xeno lifeform.




On the art, I have no clue where it came from , if you could find out who drew it, ya might find out where it was meant to be.

The Tau toes in the picture is certainly within the same realm, structurally, as the camels toes. Camel toes are more broad, but the main difference is in the structure of the rest of the foot.

On the other hand, camel do not have hooves. That's a bit confusing, as they ARE ungulates - but ungulate is a word with no good definition that is generally used as a handy way to lump a bunch of mid to large sized herbivores into a cohesive group. Not all members of the order included in "ungulates" have hooves, and there are even a few that no longer support their weight primarily on their toes.

So chimes in the biology major. Although I'd also add that morphology is complicated enough when dealing with real animals who can't just be changed at the whim of the writers - don't throw your life away debating fictional alien biology!