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

Re: Archaeopterix

Perhaps the absence of a keel is due to the lack or poor preservation of 
cartilige. If Archy represents basal flying dino/birds, the structure 
that tethered flying muscles could have been reduced and made of a 
material that didn't preserve. If I am not mistaken, there are only a few 
specimens of Archy and most are fragmentary at that. Could it be that we 
haven't the cartilaginous proto-keel?

jonathan marcot

On Fri, 27 Jan 1995, Taylor,Rod;=8728883 wrote:

> One fact seems to be regularly forgotten in these Archie discussions 
> whenever they occur - he/she couldn't have 'flown' in the trus sense.  No 
> keel!  That rather large, cartilagenous hunk of white stuff that all the 
> white meat is attached to on your Christmas turkey (no sarcasm intended - 
> sorry in that came across the wrong way!).  In the fossils of 
> Archaeopteryx I've seen, I've never seen traces of the keel, which is an 
> anchor for the large muscles required to power wing-driven flight.  Now, 
> this doesn't answer to the possibility that Archie was a glider - just 
> hold those suckers out there, and let the currents carry you out there.  
> But this would reflect on them being able to get to areas where they 
> would be able to take advantage of these currents, i.e. climbing trees.
> Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
> Rod Taylor
> Earth Sciences Dept.
> Memorial University of Newfoundland