Talk:Plantigrade

Untitled

What proof does this article have, that plantigrade style locomotion is less advanced than digitagrade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.65.62 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2006

what are the sources, please, that the listed animals are plantigrade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.49.32 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2007

216.73.65.62, you need only look at photos. You can find them on Google Images. Blast ^{[improve me]} 15.06.07 0327 (UTC)

What does "podials" mean in the context of the first sentence? This should be clarified.Dryphi (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Primates are plantigrade" is misleading

The article in its current form lists "primates (including humans)" as plantigrade. This is nonsense; have you ever watched a chimpanzee walk? It doesn't fit into ANY of the three categories that the article says all terrestrial mammals use. In their most common gait (walking on all fours), chimps walk on their fists. This article is misleading and simplistic.

I would also like to see more specific discussion of the evolutionary history, and of the anatomical implications of the various modes of locomotion (beyond just vague references to stability vs. speed), including leg-configuration diagrams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.49.65 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe chimps are digitigrade, as they actually walk on their bottom knuckles, which is a part of the finger. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sub-plantigrade is missing

Merriam-Webster defines subplantigrade as - having the heel raised when walking but standing flat-footed

Seems Wikipedia should at least mention this SleekWeasel (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps under amphibians, which currently says they are all plantigrade. Anyone who has watched a frog walk (y'know, when they aren't jumping) sees that they have well-defined digitigrade hind legs, but a cursory glance at the skeleton makes it clear how plantigrade the front legs are. Metacarpals are practically nonexistent. Yet, when at rest, they DO touch their heels to the ground, so... ~2025-40074-56 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

yes, whole plantigrady exists, I know at least one human with whole footsole walking

probably the same as flat foot = pes planus in humans, not to be confused with talipes valgus arch collapse that shows also hindfoot valgism, if not corrected - also named rachitism somewhere - nor with talipes varus overcorrected. But notmal footed humans and other primates are not plantigrade exactly in the same way, primates and monkeys charge the distal side of the feet instead of the forefeet, similar to talipes varus not corrected in humans also known as clubfoot. Sabrina.ponsi (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And, i forgot, probably whole plantigrady ie pes planus is a neoteny Sabrina.ponsi (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And maybe full plantigrady is a better definition since i do not think that the foot skeletal structure is the same as in normal arched human feet Sabrina.ponsi (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)