Is this the missing skull of the basal bird, Archaeornithura?

Updated March 16, 2016 with new images. The beak, if present, is ephemeral, questionable. Only two scores changed.

The spectacular plate and counter plate
of the basal ornithouromorph bird, Archaeornithura (Figs. 1-3, Early Cretaceous, Wang et al. 2015) appear to present every aspect of this specimen in full detail, but only the back of the skull (the occipital plate) appears to be readily preserved on the split surfaces.

Figure 2. That little patch by the shoulder could be the beak, eye and cranium of Archaeornithura.

Figure 2. That little patch by the shoulder could be the beak, eye and cranium of Archaeornithura.

Where is the rest of the skull? 
It might be here (Fig. 2). At least part of it, the beak tip, scleral ring and cranial bones (frontal and parietal) give the impression of being there. I can’t be sure working from photos alone, but when you put the parts on a reconstruction of the rest of the body (Fig. 3), the parts fit both morphologically and phylogenetically.

Figure 3. Reconstruction of the basal ornithuromorph bird, Archaeornithura with skull added. Feathers and ribs omitted. The length of the tail is hard to determine.

Figure 3. Reconstruction of the basal ornithuromorph bird, Archaeornithura with skull added. Feathers and ribs omitted. The length of the tail is hard to determine.

Despite the rather short arms, 
the long wing feathers (Fig. 1) made the wings large enough for flapping flight. The robust and long coracoids attest to the ability to flap with great vigor. The sternum is not flat, but more deeply keeled than in more primitive birds. The large pelvis anchors strong leg muscles. The fragile pubes framed larger air sacs. Despite robust sacral vertebrae that broadened the hips, the tail was reduced and without a robust parson’s nose-type pygostyle, which developed by convergence in other birds clades and in more derived ornithuromorphs. The perching toe was not so well developed and all pedal unguals were rather small, similar to those of wading pterosaurs like Ctenochasma.

Hedging paragraph:
I don’t think there is no way to tell how long the beak of Archaeornithura was given the present data. Currently I have the beak tip not very separated from the occiput giving it a rather short skull. Alternatively the length of the skull might be measured from the in situ beak tip to the in situ occiput. Then this bird would have had a longer rostrum, more like that of its beach combing analog among pterosaurs, Ctenochasma. Perhaps other specimens will help fill in the data gap here.

References
Wang M et al. (7 other authors) 2015. The oldest record of ornithuromorpha from the early cretaceous of China. 6:6987 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms7987

wiiki/Archaeornithura

 

Finding the foot of Yi qi

The fossil scanoriopterygid bird,
Yi qi (Xu et al. 2015) is infamous for purporting to have a long extra bone (the so-called ‘styliform element’) somehow anchored to the wrist (see below) that many experts, including Dr. Kevin Padian (2015, see below), regarded as acting like a bat finger to stretch and support a bat-like wing membrane (not feathers). No sister taxa, all of them scansoriopterygid birds, have even a hint of such a bone. Here at pterosaurheresies alone that bone was determined to be a displaced radius on one wing and a displaced ulna on the other. Without these displaced bones, the forearms do not have their radius or ulna counterpart, which is standard equipment in all tetrapods with limbs. Not sure why this went unnoticed by the experts.

On a side note,
the foot was not reconstructed because the bones were very faint and intermixed with tail bones (Fig. 1). Dr. Padian reported that nothing below the waist was known. That is incorrect. He must have been shown only one plate or counter plate.

With the recent reconstruction of a sister taxon,
Omnivoropteryx, which has an odd (autapomorphic) long pedal digit 4, a second attempt was made to trace and reconstruct the foot of Yi qi (Fig. 1). If the tracing is correct, then the reconstruction of the Yi pes greatly resembles that of it sister, Omnivoropteryx, as one would expect. However, digits 3 and 4 are similar in length. In some other scansoriopterygids, digit 4 is shorter to much shorter.

This tracing
is just about at the limit of DGS capabilities without a higher resolution dataset. Fortunately a sister taxon provides a blueprint to model this foot against. And yes, the caudal vertebrae are confusing as they mix in with the pedal elements. And yes, some of the bones are only represented by faint impressions distally and proximally with the rest filled in using a-z bracketing.

Figure 1. The foot (pes) of the scansoriopterygid bird, Yi qi, both in situ and reconstructed. The amber bones are causals.

Figure 1. The foot (pes) of the scansoriopterygid bird, Yi qi, both in situ and reconstructed. The amber bones are causals.

Back to the ‘styliform element’
Dr. Padian (2015) reports, “Their (Xu et. al) find opens two cans of worms: about interpreting unique structures in fossils and about what it means to fly. The styliform element, which may be a hypertrophied wrist bone or a neomorphic calcified structure, is longer than any of the animal’s fingers and is curved at both ends. It is probably not a true finger. How the structure is attached to the wrist is not clear, because its proximal end seems quite  squared off; this means that we also do not know if or how it could move.  What could this element be except a support for some kind of aerofoil? The authors infer this on the basis of its position and the presence of membranous tissue in the wrist area.”

Note that 
Dr. Padian does not consider the possibility that the ‘styliform element’ is either a displaced radius or ulna, despite matching lengths and morphologies. This lack of recognition is rare, but not unknown. For instance, in 2000 I did not recognize the stem of the displaced prepubis in Cosesaurus.

Fliapping
Padian also notes: “Furthermore, in flapping animals the outboard skeletal elements (wrist, hand and so on) are primarily responsible for thrust, the essential component of powered flight, but these are not particularly long in Yi qi. So, at present we can shelve the possibility that this dinosaur flapped.” This appears to be an oversight statement. Not only does Yi qi have an elongate hand, the point is: it doesn’t matter how large or feathered a forelimb is. Even flightless birds, including most baby birds, flap. However tetrapods that flap for locomotion all have locked down and elongate coracoids. Perhaps Padian meant ‘flying.” If so, he is likely correct. Scansoripterygids have been discovered with tail feathers, but not bird-like wing feathers. This may have been the first clade of flightless birds. As we learned yesterday, the dromaeosaurid, Balaur was not a basal flightless bird. If you want to see what basal flightless birds actually look like, check out the scansoriopterygids.

References
Padian K. 2015. Paleontology: Dinosaur up in the air. Nature (2015) doi:10.1038/nature14392
Xu X, Zheng X-T, Sullivan C, Wang X-L, Xing l, Wang Y, Zhang X-M, O’Connor JK, Zhang F-C and Pan Y-H 2015.
 A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran theropod with preserved evidence of membranous wings.Nature (advance online publication)
doi:10.1038/nature14423

Ornitholestes nests with Microraptor now

Earlier we looked at a new nesting for four-winged Microraptor in the Tyrannosaurus clade. Here a close relative (Figs. 1-2) supports that nesting (Fig. 2) and calls into question the currently accepted shrinking bird ancestor hypothesis (Fig. 3).

Ornitholestes hermanni 
(Ostrom 1903, 1917, 2m, incomplete skeleton, Late Jurassic, 154 mya) According to Wikipedia, “All published cladistic analyses have shown Ornitholestes to be a coelurosaur as defined by Gauthier.” A coelurosaur? That’s pretty general. As the arbiter of all that is known and accepted, can Wiki be more specific? Is Ornitholestes such an enigma? In the large reptile tree (subset in Fig. 4)  Ornitholestes nests between Compsognathus and Microraptor, close to Tianyuraptor in the lineage of Tyrannosaurus. The skeleton shown here was restored based on the AMNH restoration (Fig. 1), which may not be accurate with regard to the number of cervicals and dorsals (see below).

Figure 1. Ornitholestes, as originally mounted by the American Museum and revised together with Microraptor to scale. Click to enlarge.

Figure 1. Ornitholestes, as originally mounted by the American Museum and revised together with Microraptor to scale. Click to enlarge.

Ornithologist
Percy Lowe hypothesized in 1944 that Ornitholestes might have borne feathers. Now, as a close relative of Microraptor and Tianyuraptor, Ornitholestes probably had long wing and leg feathers.

Note the resemblance
of the skull of Microraptor to that of Ornitholestes (Fig. 3) and the very similar body proportions, distinct chiefly in size (Fig.1).

Figure 5. The skull of another Microraptor, QM V1002. The two nest together in the large reptile tree.

Figure 2. The skull of Microraptor, QM V1002. Note the resemblance to Ornitholestes.

Earlier phylogenetic studies
Wikipedia reports, “All published cladistic analyses have shown Ornitholestes to be a coelurosaur as defined by Gauthier. Some analysis have shown support for the hypothesis that it is the most primitive member of the group Maniraptora, though more thorough analyses have suggested it is more primitive than the Maniraptoriformes, and possibly a close relative of the “compsognathid” Juravenator starki.” That is not a very precise nesting. Here Ornitholestes supports the earlier hypothesis that Microraptor was not in the main lineage of birds, nor of dromaeosaurs, but this clade represents a pseudo-bird lineage that did not produce extant relatives. The pectoral girdle is not known for Ornitholestes, so we don’t know if it had long coracoids and a furcula suitable for flapping.

Behavior
Osborn (1903) originally considered Ornitholestes a bird catcher and “doubtless related as a family to Struthiomimus.” That behavior is unlikely (see below,) but the relationship is true in the large reptile tree as Struthiomimus nests with Compsognathus both proximal basal sisters to Ornitholestes.

Distinct from all tested sister taxa,
Ornitholestes
had a tibia not longer than the femur, a trait that usually occurs in much larger theropods, like T-rex, but also occurs in the unrelated Sinosauropteryx.

Repairing errors
Osborn (1917) thought the referred manus specimen (AMNH 587) was not adapted to seizing or holding a struggling live prey, as he originally imagined. Pertinent to an earlier discussion, Osborn 1917 noted several inaccuracies in Osborn 1903. This was not considered just cause for other paleontologist of that – or any era – to question everything Osborn produced from then on. He corrected a mistake and everyone accepted that as what Science does.

Figure 1. The evolution of birds as a consequence of miniaturization. Artist: Davide-Bonnadonna

Figure3. The evolution of birds as a consequence of miniaturization. Artist: Davide-Bonnadonna

The Shrinking Bird Ancestor Hypothesis
Earlier we looked at a paper on bird origins (Lee et al. 2014) that found a gradual size reduction in the theropod lineage that produced birds. Unfortunately, with the new cladogram, it is no longer reasonable to accept a Large > Medium > Small sequence. Rather it is more reasonable to follow a Medium > Mediium > Small  hypothesis OR a Small > Small  > Small hypothesis  of bird origins (Fig. 4). In other words, the lineage that ultimately produced birds may have stayed small and occasionally branched off medium and large-sized clade members.

Figure 2. Here, in this subset of the large reptile tree, Ornitholestes nests at the base of the Microraptor clade, close to the base of the Tyrannosaurus clade. Depending on how you look at it, either medium-size dinosaurs produced large and small dinosaurs, or small dinosaurs produced medium and large dinosaurs. In pterosaurs small always produced medium and large.

Figure 4. Here, in this subset of the large reptile tree, Ornitholestes nests at the base of the Microraptor clade, close to the base of the Tyrannosaurus clade. Every 5 seconds the graphic will change, 3 frames. Depending on how you look at it, either medium-size dinosaurs produced large and small dinosaurs, or small dinosaurs produced medium and large dinosaurs. In pterosaurs small always produced medium and large.

Of course, a more complete fossil record
could solve this problem. But at present we should not loose sight of the fact that basalmost dinosaurs, like Barberenasuchus and Eodromaeus, were small, not medium or large (depending on your definition and cut-off, of course). With Tyrannosaurus in the mix, Struthio the ostrich becomes a medium-sized theropod, even though it is a large bird. The presence of small dinosaurs, like Compsognathus, at several basal nodes in the large reptile tree allow the possibility that theropod evolution happened at a small scale that occasionally produced medium and large-sized clade members. These did not directly contribute to the lineage of stem birds. Earlier we looked at the several bird-mimic clades that sprang from the basic bird lineage.

References
Lee MSY, Cau A, Naish D and Dyke GJ 2014. Sustained miniaturization and anatomical innovation in the dinosaurian ancestors of birds.
Osborn HF 1903. 
Ornitholestes hermanni, a New Compsognathoid
Dinosaur from the Upper Jurassic. Bulletin of the AMNH 19:(12):459-464.
Osborn HF 1917. Skeletal adaptations of Ornitholestes, Struthiomimus, Tyrannosaurus. Bulletin of the AMNH 35 (43) pdf
Xing L, Persons WS, Bell PR, Xu X, Zhang J-P, Miyashita T, Wang F-P and Currie P 2013. Piscivery iin the feathered dinosaur Microraptor. Evolution 67(8):2441-2445.
Xu X, Zhou Z, Wang X, Kuang X, Zhang F and Du X 2003. Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature, 421: 335–340.

wiki/Microraptor
wiki/Ornitholestes

Chiappeavis – what is it?

There’s a wonderful new
Early Cretaceous bird out there, Chiappeavis (Figs 1, 2), named for a famous bird paleontologist, Luis Chiappe. The question is, what clade does it belong to?

Figure 1. Chiappeavis nests as an ornithurine bird in the large reptile tree, rather than as an enantiornithine. Click to enlarge. Image from O'Connor et al. 2015. 

Figure 1. Chiappeavis nests as an ornithurine bird in the large reptile tree, rather than as an enantiornithine. Click to enlarge. Image from O’Connor et al. 2015.

From the O’Connor et al. 2016 abstract: The most basal avians Archaeopteryx and Jeholornis have elongate reptilian tails. However, all other birds (Pygostylia) have an abbreviated tail that ends in a fused element called the pygostyle. In extant birds, this is typically associated with a fleshy structure called the rectricial bulb that secures the tail feathers (rectrices). The bulbi rectricium muscle controls the spread of the rectrices during flight. This ability to manipulate tail shape greatly increases flight function. The Jehol avifauna preserves the earliest known pygostylians and a diversity of rectrices. However, no fossil directly elucidates this important skeletal transition. Differences in plumage and pygostyle morphology between clades of Early Cretaceous birds led to the hypothesis that rectricial bulbs co-evolved with the plough-shaped pygostyle of the Ornithuromorpha. A newly discovered pengornithid, Chiappeavis magnapremaxillo gen. et sp. nov., preserves strong evidence that enantiornithines possessed aerodynamic rectricial fans. The consistent co-occurrence of short pygostyle morphology with clear aerodynamic tail fans in the Ornithuromorpha, the Sapeornithiformes, and now the Pengornithidae strongly supports inferences that these features co-evolved with the rectricial bulbs as a “rectricial complex.” Most parsimoniously, rectricial bulbs are plesiomorphic to Pygostylia and were lost in confuciusornithiforms and some enantiornithines, although morphological differences suggest three independent origins.”

Figure 2. Chiappeavis reconstructed. Is this specimen just another Pengornis? The large reptile tree does not nest them together.

Figure 2. Chiappeavis reconstructed. Is this specimen just another Pengornis? The large reptile tree does not nest them together. The wing size alone is enough to distinguish this taxon from Pelagornis. 

Elsewhere on the Internet, at
Theropoddatabase.blogspot.com, M. Mortimer presents arguments that Chiappeavis is just another Pengornis (Figs. 3, 4).

Figure 3. Pengornis reconstructed not from tracing, but from cutting out the bones and putting them back together. Color tracing is used only for the skull elements. This holotype specimen does not have the same morphology or proportions that Chiappeavis has and it nests within the Enantiornithes.

Figure 3. Pengornis reconstructed not from tracing, but from cutting out the bones and putting them back together. Color tracing is used only for the skull elements. This holotype specimen does not have the same morphology or proportions that Chiappeavis has and it nests within the Enantiornithes with Sulcavis.

Okay, this is going to ruffle a few feathers…
In the large reptile tree Chiappeavis nests firmly between the clade of Wellnhoferia (aka: the Solnhofen specimen of Archeopteryx + Confuciusornis and Archaeornithura, the now former basalmost ancestor of extant birds. I’m using different traits, but they seem to work. Unlike other studies we know of, there are no scores for absent traits, all derived taxa demonstrate a gradual accumulation of derived traits, and the tree remains completely resolved.

Figure 4. Pengornis in situ with tracing from O'Connor et al. identifying bones.

Figure 4. Pengornis in situ with tracing from O’Connor et al. identifying bones.

>If<  I’ve made enough mistakes
to shift Chiappeavis over to the enantiornithes, please let me know, but everything seems to check out from head to toe.

And yes,
I realize the shape of the scapula/coracoid articulation, the lateral shape of the coracoids, and the stem at the base of the clavicle are all obvious enantiornithine traits. Unfortunately, none of these traits are included in the large reptile tree. However, traits along the lines of a lack of a maxillary fossa, and the elongation of the premaxillary ascending process are included.

So two questions have been provisionally answered here.
Chiappeavis does not share enough traits with Pengornis to be considered conspecific in the large reptile tree. And, Chiappeavis does not share enough traits with enantiornithine birds to be nested with them. Rather Chiappeavis appears to be the new basalmost member of the Ornithurae, for which fan tails are standard equipment. And look at the size of those wings!!!

Perhaps the confusion might stem from
other studies that do not include the various specimens of Archaeopteryx as taxonomic units. Several are distinct and nests basal to one of several derived clades. Reconstructions also seem to help.

References
O’Connor JK, Wang X-L, Zheng X-T, Hu H, Zhang  X-M and  Zhou Z 2016.
An Enantiornithine with a Fan-Shaped Tail, and the Evolution of the Rectricial Complex in Early Birds.Current Biology (advance online publication) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.036

Microraptor: not a ‘raptor’??

Earlier
the large reptile tree nested two putative dromaeosaurs with composgnathid/tyrannosaurs, Tianyuraptor and Zhenyuanlong. Today the famous four-wiinged dinosaur/bird Microraptor (Figs. 1, 2) is added to that list, nesting between Compsognathus and Tianyuraptor, all three basal to T-rex.

Figure 1. Microraptor gui (IVPP V 13352) shown in two photos and with DGS tracing of bones and feathers.

Figure 1. Microraptor gui (IVPP V 13352) shown in two photos and with DGS tracing of bones and feathers. Click to enlarge.

This is the specimen
that inspired a PBS Nova special and a race between competing teams of paleontologists to figure out the best usage for the odd foot feathers. The Kansas team led by Dr. Larry Martin produced a sprawling model that went against everything we know di dinosaur hind limbs.

Figure 2. Microraptor gui (IVPP V 13352) reconstructed from tracings in figure 1. There are no surprises here, except a provisional closer relationship with Compsognathus than with Velociraptor. Microraptor has a large pedal claw two, but it is not quite the killing claw seen in droamaeosaurs.

Figure 2. Microraptor gui (IVPP V 13352) reconstructed from tracings in figure 1. There are no surprises here, except a provisional closer relationship with Compsognathus than with Velociraptor. Microraptor has a large pedal claw two, but it is not quite the killing claw seen in droamaeosaurs.

So this makes three former dromaeosaurs
now nesting with long-legged Compsognathus and Tyrannosaurus. Among them, only Microraptor has long arms/wings. Zhenyuanlong has equally substantial feathers. So this adds credulity to the idea that Compsognathus was well feathered. Only Microraptor has a posteriorly directed pubic foot, but see Compsognathus (Fig. 4) for its derivation. This is not a posteriorly directed pubis.

Figure 4. Compsognathus was not preserved with feathers, but with a sister taxon like Microraptor, it might have had substantial feathers.

Figure 4. Compsognathus was not preserved with feathers, but with a sister taxon like Microraptor, it might have had substantial feathers.

Is Microraptor a bird (clade Aves)?
Wikipedia (Evolution of Birds) defined Aves as “all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of a specific modern bird species (such as the house sparrow, Passer domesticus), and either Archaeopteryx, or some prehistoric species closer to Neornithes (to avoid the problems caused by the unclear relationships of Archaeopteryx to other theropods).[ If the latter classification is used then the larger group is termed Avialae. Currently, the relationship between dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx, and modern birds is still under debate.”

Is Microraptor a member of the clade Avialae?
Wikipedia defines the clade Avialae “a clade of dinosaurs containing their only living representatives, the birds. It is usually defined as all theropod dinosaurs more closely related to modern birds (Aves) than to deinonychosaurs, though alternate definitions are occasionally used (see below).” 

So, Microraptor is not a bird. 
In the same light, not all Archaeopteryx specimens are birds, but Wellnhoferia (aka The Solnhofen specimen, Archaeopteryx grandis) apparently is a bird as it nests closest to living birds of all Solnhofen specimens.

Yes
I don’t have a complete list of theropods in the large reptile tree. But this is what the tree recovers at present. If valid, theropods with long feathers on their forelimbs appear earlier than some workers think. And maybe I’m just catching up to the rest of them.

There are other specimens out there referred to Microraptor
and I have not tested them yet. Perhaps one or more are more closely related to Velociraptor. 

Addendum
Here is the skull of the QM V 1002 specimen of Microraptor (Fig. 5, Xing et al. 2013). The two nest together in the large reptile tree, but differ in several traits. They are not conspecific.

Figure 5. The skull of another Microraptor, QM V1002. The two nest together in the large reptile tree.

Figure 5. The skull of another Microraptor, QM V1002, the fish eater. The two nest together in the large reptile tree. I’m a little confused by the occiput. I’ll get back to that later.

References
Xing L, Persons WS, Bell PR, Xu X, Zhang J-P, Miyashita T, Wang F-P and Currie P 2013. Piscivery iin the feathered dinosaur Microraptor. Evolution 67(8):2441-2445.
Xu X, Zhou Z, Wang X, Kuang X, Zhang F, and Du X 2003. Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature, 421: 335–340.

wiki/Microraptor

 

 

Intermedium reappears in birds

Ossa-Fuentes L, Modozis J and Vargas AO 2015
discover a detail of interest in bird osteology and ontogeny.

They report, “This work has revealed that the ascending process [of the ankle] does not develop from either the heel bone or the ankle bone, but from a third element, the intermedium. In the ancient lineage of paleognath birds (such as tinamous, ostriches and kiwis) the intermedium comes closer to the anklebone, producing a dinosaur-like pattern. However, in the other major avian branch (neognaths), which includes most species of living birds, it comes closer to the heel bone; that creates the impression it is a different structure, when it is actually the same.”

And that’s not all… They continue: “More remarkably, however, this finding reveals an unexpected evolutionary transformation in birds. In embryos of the land egg-laying animals, the amniotes (which include crocodilians, lizards, turtles, and mammals, who secondarily evolved live birth) the intermedium fuses to the anklebone shortly after it forms, disappearing as a separate element. This does not occur in the bird ankle, which develops more like their very distant relatives that still lay their eggs in water, the amphibians. Since birds clearly belong within landegg-laying animals, their ankles have somehow resurrected a long-lost developmental pathway, still retained in the amphibians of today – a surprising case of evolutionary reversal. The study also presented fossil evidence from juvenile specimens of toothed birds from the Cretaceous period. These show that, at this early stage of bird evolution, the ascending process already developed separately.”

On a similar note,
as you may recall from this earlier blog post, the pre-amniote, and almost pre-tetrapod, digit zero, the manual digit medial to the thumb, which is absent in almost all derived tetrapods, also appears on Limusaurus and caused the phase shift confusion noted earlier.

References
Ossa-Fuentes L, Modozis J and Vargas AO 2015. Bird embryos uncover homology and evolution of the dinosaur ankle. Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/natcomms9902
Diaz RE & Trainor PA 2015. Hand/foot splitting and the ‘re-evolution’of mesopodial skeletal elements during the evolution and radiation of chameleons. BMC evolutionary biology, 15(1), 184.
https://paleobiologia.wordpress.com (blog en español)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151113/ncomms9902/full/ncomms9902.html

Walking around like a chicken with its head cut off

Since chickens are dinosaurs,
one wonders if such stories (see below) ever replayed in the Mesozoic after a predator encounter.

Figure 1. Mike the headless chicken, circa 1945. Click for webpage.

Figure 1. Mike the headless chicken, circa 1945. Click for webpage.

I happened to be listening to a story on NPR (National Public Radio) today
about a chicken surviving three days with its head cut off, and memories of my time as a kid on a Nebraska farm seeing the same, inspired today’s blog.

Here’a a YouTube video of a headless chicken for the morbidly curious, apparently from China.

And here’s another video about Mike, the headless chicken, back in the 1940s. He lived for, they say, 18 months after his decapitation. And here is another video about Mike. There’s a Wikipedia article here. And there’s even a website devoted to Mike where you can get T-shirts and other such memorabilia if you you are so inclined.

Apparently if you cut too high,
part of the brainstem and an inner ear can remain connected to the nervous system. So the chicken can maintain balance, react to sounds and have no head.