Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Tail-assisted pitch control in lizards, robots and dinosaurs

Nature volume 481, pages 181–184 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

In 1969, a palaeontologist proposed1 that theropod dinosaurs used their tails as dynamic stabilizers during rapid or irregular movements, contributing to their depiction as active and agile predators. Since then the inertia of swinging appendages has been implicated in stabilizing human walking2,3, aiding acrobatic manoeuvres by primates4,5,6,7,8 and rodents9, and enabling cats to balance on branches10. Recent studies on geckos11,12,13 suggest that active tail stabilization occurs during climbing, righting and gliding. By contrast, studies on the effect of lizard tail loss show evidence of a decrease, an increase or no change in performance14,15. Application of a control-theoretic framework could advance our general understanding of inertial appendage use in locomotion. Here we report that lizards control the swing of their tails in a measured manner to redirect angular momentum from their bodies to their tails, stabilizing body attitude in the sagittal plane. We video-recorded Red-Headed Agama lizards (Agama agama) leaping towards a vertical surface by first vaulting onto an obstacle with variable traction to induce a range of perturbations in body angular momentum. To examine a known controlled tail response, we built a lizard-sized robot with an active tail that used sensory feedback to stabilize pitch as it drove off a ramp. Our dynamics model revealed that a body swinging its tail experienced less rotation than a body with a rigid tail, a passively compliant tail or no tail. To compare a range of tails, we calculated tail effectiveness as the amount of tailless body rotation a tail could stabilize. A model Velociraptor mongoliensis supported the initial tail stabilization hypothesis1, showing as it did a greater tail effectiveness than the Agama lizards. Leaping lizards show that inertial control of body attitude can advance our understanding of appendage evolution and provide biological inspiration for the next generation of manoeuvrable search-and-rescue robots.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Pitch stabilization using a tail in a lizard and robot.
Figure 2: Sensitivity of body rotation to a perturbation in a lizard and robot.
Figure 3: Tail effectiveness for A. agama, V. mongoliensis and a robot with tail.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ostrom, J. H. Osteology of Deinonychus antirrhopus, an unusual theropod from the Lower Cretaceous of Montana. Bull. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. (Paris) 30, 68–80,–144 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pijnappels, M. et al. Armed against falls: the contribution of arm movements to balance recovery after tripping. Exp. Brain Res. 201, 689–699 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Roos, P. E. et al. The role of arm movement in early trip recovery in younger and older adults. Gait Posture 27, 352–356 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dunbar, D. C. Aerial maneuvers of leaping lemurs: the physics of whole-body rotations while airborne. Am. J. Primatol. 16, 291–303 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Larson, S. G. & Stern, J. T. Maintenance of above-branch balance during primate arboreal quadrupedalism: coordinated use of forearm rotators and tail motion. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 129, 71–81 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Günther, M. M., Ishida, H., Kumakura, H. & Nakano, Y. The jump as a fast mode of locomotion in arboreal and terrestrial biotopes. Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 78, 341–372 (1991)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Demes, B. et al. Body size and leaping kinematics in Malagasy vertical clingers and leapers. J. Hum. Evol. 31, 367–388 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Peters, A. & Preuschoft, H. in Biology of Tarsiers (ed. Niemitz, C.) 227–255 (Fischer, 1984)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bartholomew, G. A. & Caswell, H. H. Locomotion in kangaroo rats and its adaptive significance. J. Mamm. 32, 155–169 (1951)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walker, C. et al. Balance in the cat: role of the tail and effects of sacrocaudal transection. Behav. Brain Res. 91, 41–47 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jusufi, A., Goldman, D. I., Revzen, S. & Full, R. J. Active tails enhance arboreal acrobatics in geckos. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4215–4219 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Jusufi, A., Kawano, D. T., Libby, T. & Full, R. J. Righting and turning in mid-air using appendage inertia: reptile tails, analytical models and bio-inspired robots. Bioinspir. Biomim. 5, 045001 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jusufi, A., Zeng, Y., Full, R. J. & Dudley, R. Aerial righting reflexes in flightless animals. Integr. Comp. Biol. 51, 937–943 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bateman, P. W. & Fleming, P. A. To cut a long tail short: a review of lizard caudal autotomy studies carried out over the last 20 years. J. Zool. (Lond.) 277, 1–14 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gillis, G. B., Bonvini, L. A. & Irschick, D. J. Losing stability: tail loss and jumping in the arboreal lizard Anolis carolinensis. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 604–609 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang-Siu, E., Libby, T., Tomizuka, M. & Full, R. J. in IEEE/RSJ Internat. Conf. Intelligent Robots Systems 2011 1887–1894 (IEEE, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Berkemeier, M. D. & Fearing, R. S. Control of a two-link robot to achieve sliding and hopping gaits. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 1, 286–291 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mather, T. W. & Yim, M. in IEEE/RSJ Internat. Conf. Intelligent Robots Systems 2009 5905–5910 (IEEE, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hyun Soo, P. et al. in IEEE Internat. Conf. Robotics Automation 2009 2655–2660 (IEEE, 2009)

  20. Saunders, A. et al. The RiSE climbing robot: body and leg design. Proc. SPIE 6230, 623017 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alexander, R. M. Dinosaur biomechanics. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 1849–1855 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Paul, G. S. The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs 137 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Paul, G. S. Dinosaurs of the Air: the Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds 45 (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carrier, D. R. et al. Influence of rotational inertia on turning performance of theropod dinosaurs: clues from humans with increased rotational inertia. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 3917–3926 (2001)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sellers, W. I. & Manning, P. L. Estimating dinosaur maximum running speeds using evolutionary robotics. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 2711–2716 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dowling, J. J. et al. The uncertainty of the pendulum method for the determination of the moment of inertia. Med. Eng. Phys. 28, 837–841 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank P. Jennings for video editing and figure production, T. Full for digitizing the lizard video and K. Padian for his advice on the dinosaur reconstruction and capability. We thank O. O’Reilly, S. Sponberg and N. Sapir for advice on analysis. This work was supported by a US NSF FIBR grant to R.J.F., a MAST CTA grant to R.J.F, an NSF IGERT under award DGE-0903711 and a Swiss NSF Fellowship to A.J.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Interdisciplinary Bio-Inspiration in Education and Research, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-3140, California, USA

    Thomas Libby

  2. Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, 94720–3140, California, USA

    Talia Y. Moore, Deborah Li, Ardian Jusufi & Robert J. Full

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-1740, California, USA

    Evan Chang-Siu

  4. Department of Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-1762, California, USA

    Daniel J. Cohen

Authors
  1. Thomas Libby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Talia Y. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evan Chang-Siu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deborah Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel J. Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ardian Jusufi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Robert J. Full
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

T.L. designed the study and robot, carried out experiments, analysed data and wrote initial drafts of the manuscripts. T.Y.M. designed the study, carried out animal experiments and worked out kinematics. E.C.-S. designed and constructed the robot, carried out experiments and derived the analytical model. D.L. carried out experiments and worked out kinematics. D.J.C. designed experiments and collected and analysed animal kinematic data. A.J. designed and performed experiments and analysed data. R.J.F. directed the project, defined the analysis and wrote the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Full.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Tables 1-2, Supplementary Figures 1 and legend and legends for Supplementary Movies 1-5. (PDF 254 kb)

Supplementary Movie 1

This move shows a side view of a lizard, A. agama, leaping to a vertical surface from a high-friction vault – see Supplementary Information file for full legend. (MOV 3774 kb)

Supplementary Movie 2

This movie shows a side view of a lizard, A. agama, leaping to a vertical surface from a low-friction vault - see Supplementary Information file for full legend. (MOV 2814 kb)

Supplementary Movie 3

This movie shows a side view of the robot driving off an inclined ramp without feedback control - see Supplementary Information file for full legend. (MOV 4143 kb)

Supplementary Movie 4

This movie shows a side view of robot driving off an inclined ramp with an active tail - see Supplementary Information file for full legend. (MOV 4365 kb)

Supplementary Movie 5

This movie shows a side view of a lizard, A. agama, leaping to a vertical surface from a high-friction vault - see Supplementary Information file for full legend. (MOV 3484 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Libby, T., Moore, T., Chang-Siu, E. et al. Tail-assisted pitch control in lizards, robots and dinosaurs. Nature 481, 181–184 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10710

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10710

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing