This is an old question which never received an answer. And certainly an answer wasn’t required before the publication of cteappv. As everything in the paper is about clarification and one more particular point remain unclear, I’ll post my question here and maybe Vincent Fleury will be kind enough to provide an answer.
Limbs positioning and global orientation is attributed by Vincent’s model to four vortices. For argument’s sake1 let’s assume that such vortices exists and have something to do with limbs .
In the legend of Fig. 38 there is an explanation of the global orientation of the limbs.
Unfortunately the vortices are not represented but it’s easy to add them. Hindlimbs are represented so the hypothetical L2/R2 are in play. Two counterrotating vortices flanking the anteroposterior axis, centered (?) to the hindlimbs fields.
I hope I positioned them correctly according to the model, based on Fleury’s sketches in his personal university’s website. L2 in the left turning clockwise and R2 on the right, turning anti-clockwise.
Two step further from the third panel of fig. 38 you get which curiously represent an already developing autopod instead of the limb bud, with five rays probably representing the future fingers. Probably a residue of the misconception described in Oops 090616. Not really important here.
The hiatus is visible when we continue to panel five of the figure, where the stylo- and zygo-pods become apparent.The proximal point is depicted by a round, the distal one by an arrowhead. The limbs “rotation” is inverse in respect to the vortices, counter-clockwise for the left limb and clockwise for the right limb.
Here L2 in detail: L2 turns clockwise, the limbs counter-clockwise. Is this correct Dr Fleury?
1. And only for argument’s sake, nobody should understand that as an acceptation of not yet demonstrated features.
Filed under: Question |