[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [Re: Climbing dromaeosaurs?]
At 02:44 AM 12/12/98 +1100, it was written:
>We've bandied about theories here concerning the utility of
>dromaeosaurs' enlarged hindclaws, and discussed the difficulty they'd
>have had slashing with them. Some have suggested that the claw may
>have been used instead to climb trees.
I've never liked this theory. There are many successful strategies
for climbing trees, and nothing like the dromaeosaur claw. Although
it seems that such a claw would work, it doesn't seem like it would
work that well. And if it did, three or four suck claws should work
better. And it seems a sicle would work much better on a hand or
foreleg than the rear leg.
So, does someone have a counter to these arguments?
Is 'efficiency' really important? I am of the belief that 'sufficiency' of the
structure to perform the desired task is all that is required, after all it
doesn't matter how efficient it is, as long as it can meet the requirements.
Also, the development of structures, depends on what was before, i.e. what its
ancestors had. It may not be possible to evolve the 'most efficient' design
because of evolutionary constraints, so instead it evolves to enable the task
to be completed sufficiently.
Just a few thoughts
More than just email--Get your FREE Netscape WebMail account today at