[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: BCF and BADD
LN Jeff writes:
> This is certainly a good point. On possible exception to this rule
>might be the peacock, which has a huge, cumbersome tail whose only
>purpose is disply. I'm not sure if peacocks can fly well or at all.
Sigh. Peacocks do NOT have a huge, cumbersome tail - the peacock's train is
composed of feathers of the lower back, not the tail. Take a look at a
displaying peacock from behind sometime - you can see the real tail propping
up the train. And yes, peacocks can fly.
>If they can't, it would be a point in favor
>of bird ancestors being able to get by fine as crusorial forms with
>cumbersome display structures on thier arms. However, an arboreal animal
>might indeed have more latitude for developing such elaborate structures
>since it would have less predator problems.
At least two flightless birds, the ostrich and the kagu, retain fairly large
wings which are used in display - this is especially true for the kagu.
> However, the idea of feathers being developed first for insulation runs
>into basically the same problem of transitional forms as feathers originally
>being developed for flight. A few little bristles on the offspring of
>those first naked archosaurs aren't going to do diddly for trapping
>heat. Any suggestions out there for what those pathetic proto-feathrs
>might have been used for?
Also - I believe there is no evidence that Archaeopteryx even HAD contour
feathers (the type used for insulation). I know of no hard evidence
suggesting that insulating feathers evolved before the remiges and rectrices.
Ronald I. Orenstein Phone: (905) 820-7886 (home)
International Wildlife Coalition Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116 (home)
Home: 1825 Shady Creek Court Messages: (416) 368-4661
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2 Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org
Office: 130 Adelaide Street W., Suite 1940
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3P5