[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: To climb or not to climb
Larry Febo wrote:
<This may also have been a reason for the apparent decline of smaller
pterosaur species in the Cretaceous, a loss of habitat. I can see
pterosaurs landing on long springy Cycad type leaves, but not upon
angiosperm branches (I think they lacked that precise
maneuverability). They may have been confined to relatively tropical
areas that sported cycads, until outcompeted even on their own turf by
the evolving avian form.>
How would apparently more ungainly pterosaurs manage on springy,
flexible, bend under its weight, cycad fronds more lilkely than firmer
angiosperm branches? And what about gymnosperms (conifers et al.)?
While agreeably the only comparative habitat of bird/pterosaur we have
is the Solhofen, with low-laying plants and possibly short trees, does
that neccesarily preclude incapability of landing in trees (real
trees, not cycads)?
You know, this gets me thinking about the Hateg, the "dwarf"
locality in Romania, and how the plants there may have contributed to
the smaller animals, or developed _brachium in brachium_? Perhaps
Berislav can enlighten me.
Jaime A. Headden
Qilong, the website, at:
All comments and criticisms are welcome!
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com