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

Re: bcf vs. badd



In a message dated 95-12-01 18:22:28 EST, Dinogeorge@aol.com writes:

>What I'm after is something that would _drive_ proto-birds into the trees,
>and thence into the air. Locating new food sources is an _a posteriori_
>adjunct of any particular flight adaptation.

A few messages back, Dinogeorge suggested that the small, arboreal,
hypothetical dino-bird-theropod things took to the trees to escape predators,
then learned to fly.  Ronald Orenstein rebutted with the idea that getting
into the trees should be enough to escape some predators, but not a good
reason to learn to fly.  Some predators, of course, could have followed these
little proto-dino-birds into the trees, so learning to fly might have helped
them to escape _these_ guys.  Is this correct so far?

Well.  How about this:  since these proto-birds were probably carnivorous,
what if _they_ were the predators that some other poor creature was taking to
the trees to escape from?  The proto-birds might follow them up (gradually
becoming more and more adept at doing so, or perhaps, they already were
adequately equipped).  The prey-critters, seeing that merely taking to the
trees was not enough, might have taken to the jumping around in the branches
hypothesised for the proto-birds as an escape mechanism.  The proto-birds
then might have learned to fly/glide/whatever in order to catch these agile
little critters, be they bugs, lizards, mammals or whatever.

This scenario would seem to work for both BCF and BADD.  And, it does, to me
at least, provide a reason for them being up in the trees to begin with!

Or am I way off...? :o)

Derek Smith.