XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mr@sandman.net   
      
   In article , No One In Particular wrote:   
      
   > > Sandman:   
   > > Well, not that I could say from memory alone, but would the   
   > > description of Smaug, also a featherless flying creature not also   
   > > lend itself to be interpreted as a Pterodactylus if so? I mean, I   
   > > have no problem you seeing a Pterodactylus in your inner mind when   
   > > reading the text, but the passage is so sparse on details so you   
   > > really couldn't make a firm conclusion based on it, it was just   
   > > the image that came into your mind.   
   >   
   > > Of course, Smaug is a dragon and the inner eye already have   
   > > somewhat of an idea just how a dragon is supposed to look when   
   > > reading about him, but what if you didn't? I'm sure if he was   
   > > "Smaug the Fellbeast" or "Smaug the Hellwing" and you read the   
   > > description of it, it is equally as fitting to a huge   
   > > Pterodactylus as well - for your inner eye at least.   
   >   
   > > That said, reading the above passage I have to say that   
   > > Pterodactylus is firmly ruled out. :)   
   >   
   > Agreed about that, at least; the passage is quite ambiguous.   
   > However, Smaug was never in doubt.  My mental image of him, no   
   > doubt, was influenced by the book art and the Rankin Bass film; but   
   > Ole Smokey was always a dragon.   
      
   Right, but my point was that you "knew" what he looks like since he is   
   called "dragon", and I have no doubt that Tolkien meant for Smaug look like   
   a "conventional" dragon, but if he had called the creature/species   
   something else to which you had no preconcieved notion about how it looks,   
   then Smaug's description might well have led you as much astray as the   
   description of the Nazgul mounts.   
      
   > The Nazgul's ride, on the other hand, could be a number of things.   
      
   Indeed. Much like the Balrog (quite obviously) can look in a number of   
   different ways :)   
      
   > Based on Tolkien's letter, basically you can call it whatever your   
   > heart desires.  I like Pterodactyl.  Or, if current fossil evidence   
   > be against me, then mayhaps some long lost cousin of the breed,   
   > which has not been seen in the fossil record yet.   
      
   Well, we can't know for sure, and who am I to question your inner eye and   
   your fantasy. I was just pointing out that nature has a way to create   
   wings, and the Nazgul mounts' wings, as described, does not match the wings   
   of a Pterodactylus, or any flying dinosaur. The reason for this is quite   
   simple. The limbs of a Pterodactylus closely resembles the limbs of a bird,   
   and as you may now, most scientists consider most dinosaurs to be most   
   closely related to the birds of today, so that makes perfect sense. This is   
   also true of Pterorhynchus and Jeholopterus, who also have membrane   
   (patagium) between one finger extending back to its hind limbs.   
      
   Bats, on the other hand, who have wings that look a lot like Tolkien   
   described the rides, have developed patagium between all digits, and this   
   is also the most common way dragon wings are depicted.   
      
      
   --   
   Sandman[.net]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)