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


>From: ornstn@inforamp.net (Ronald Orenstein)
 > There is, of course, no evidence that flight evolved to escape predators.
 > In fact I am inclined to doubt this if only because it seems to have evolved
 > first in carnivorous forms, leading me to suspect that reaching new sources
 > of food may have been more important. 

You have an interesting point here.

Of course there is no reason why something has to be selected for
by only one force. Both resource acquisition *and* predator escape
may have been important. After all, predatoras though they may have,
the ancestors of the various flying groups were also *small*, and thus
rather susceptible to predation.

 >  A possible exception, megachiropteran
 > bats, feed on fruit which can only be reached by having access to trees (and
 > of course fruit did not exist until the Cretaceous).

Neither do bats :-)

However, based on genetic phylogenies, I had thought that the hypothesis
that megachiropterans had a separate origin from other bats had been

If I am right, this means that megachiropterans are secondarily

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.