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


In a message dated 95-12-02 15:29:14 EST, ornstn@inforamp.net (Ronald
Orenstein) writes:

>Subject to corrections from others here, it is my understanding that we
>don't know for a fact if ANY theropods, Archaeopteryx included, were
>arboreal.  It seems (to me anyway) not at all unlikely that some were, but
>in the absence of a defining suite of characters for an arboreal tetrapod I
>don't see how we can ever be sure.

As I've said elsewhere, How arboreal is arboreal? There is virtually a
continuum of ecological grades between strictly ground-dwelling cursorial
animals that never go into trees or other high places all the way to animals
that are born, live, and die in acronomic (see previous posting)
environments, contacting the ground solely by accident.

Although we cannot show beyond doubt that there were arboreal or acronomic
theropods, we also cannot show beyond doubt that there weren't, at least for
the small forms. I think we can safely assume that forms such as _Allosaurus_
and _Tyrannosaurus_ did not climb trees or cliffs.