[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Flight



> 
> Bill Barbour wrote:
> 
> >And what is the physiological evidence that archaeopteryx was a climber? Is
> >it definitive or speculative in nature?
> 
> The hallux or big toe in _Archaeopteryx_ is opposed, which makes it easier
> to cling onto branches; as opposed to theropods whos feet are composed of
> non-opposable toes. Also the claws on _Archaeopteryx_ are apropos, since
> they are very clean i.e. not abraided, which has been proposed to indicate
> minimal contact with the ground, supposedly.

Okay, the last part I follow, but as for the opposable toes, I'm not 
sure if that would mean too much, because didn't Velociraptor also
have opposed toes, or am I misunderstanding? Boy, the sight of a 
Velociraptor in a tree is a truly scary thought...
> 
> Chris
> 
> cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au,   nedin@ediacara.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
> the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
> of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong,
> it was all downhill from there.

I know I should have clipped that part out, but I just had to leave it
in; it's great...

> 
> 


=====================================================================
|    Sean R. "Snake" Kerns              e-mail: sean.kerns@sdrc.com |  
|    DoD# 1052   '48 CJ-2A   '79 F-250 4x4 429   '93 750 Virago     |
|    Structural Dynamics Research Corporation    '79 AQHA           | 
|    These opinions aren't SDRC's...  They may not even be MINE...  |
=====================================================================