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

Dinogeorge Digest #7



Anyone who couldn't receive my long reply to Matt Troutman's e-mail on BCF
because his or her server had problems with its length, let me know, and I'll
resend it in two smaller pieces. Its title is the same as the title in the
subject line immediately following:

Subj:   Re: BCF& COMMENTS ON IT (really long)
Date:   98-07-05 15:26:03 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     jrccea@bellsouth.net
CC:     m_troutman@hotmail.com

In a message dated 98-07-05 11:23:36 EDT, jrccea@bellsouth.net
writes:

<< Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
 
 > Airfoils must be asymmetric, because it is the difference between the
airflow
 > over the top and bottom surfaces that provides the lift; a symmetric wing
 > would have the same kind of airflow over top and bottom and thus generate
 > near-zero lift.
 
 This is false. >>

Thanks for the correction. I assume, then, that this means that birds with
symmetric feathers would have been as capable of flight as birds with
asymmetric flight feathers, and that the fact that _Archaeopteryx_ had
>asymmetric< wing feathers is irrelevant to the question of whether it could
fly. So, then, why has this ever been an issue?

I still contend that there >must< be some kind of asymmetry in the shape of
an airfoil to provide lift. If the airfoil itself is perfectly symmetric,
then the lift must be provided by asymmetric use and arrangement of ancillary
airfoils, such as flaps and elevators. Otherwise the force generated by
airflow over the top would cancel the force generated by airflow over the
bottom, leaving a net lift of zero. Why is this incorrect?

Subj:   Re: Futabasaurus and Ryu
Date:   98-07-05 07:34:23 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     naokym@gol.com

In a message dated 98-07-05 03:03:24 EDT, naokym@gol.com writes:

<< 'Futabasaurus' is introduced in Don Glut's 'Dinosaurs -The Encyclopdia'
 (pp960) as a large theropod, but I've never heard of it. >>

The name "Futabasaurus" was first used by David Lambert in his _Field Guide
to Dinosaurs_ (may not be exact title, because my copy is buried in boxes
right now) in 1990, as his English translation of "Futaba-ryu," supposedly a
large theropod; it was later noted as an indeterminate tyrannosaurid in _The
Age of Dinosaurs in Japan and China_ (Dong, Hasegawa & Azuma, 1990)

Subj:   Re: 2 questions
Date:   98-07-03 19:14:32 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     kat1912@mindspring.com

In a message dated 98-07-03 13:32:38 EDT, kat1912@mindspring.com
writes:

<< Any advice you guys can help with would be *greatly* appreciated! :) >>

Don't waste your time with academic stuff, courses, and so forth, unless of
course you really want to. You've done your stint in school. Now it's time to
pursue your interests wherever they may lead and become expert in them;
desirable career opportunities will open up for you like magic. If you need
an advanced degree down the road, get it then; it will be much easier to
obtain, because you'll be more motivated and focused.

Subj:   Re: secondary flightlessness
Date:   98-07-03 18:45:06 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
CC:     david.lessin@walgreens.com

In a message dated 98-07-03 13:01:31 EDT, znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU
writes:

<< Or, perhaps, birds are transitional between lepidosaurs and crocs?
 An amusing notion, but I wouldn't push it too far... >>

No, because the tree topology doesn't allow birds to branch off between
lepidosaurs and crocs. No matter how you arrange the usual/standard amniote
cladogram, crocs will lie between lepidosaurs and birds.

NOTE ADDED: I'm wrong here. Disregard this particular post.

Subj:   Re: FCF
Date:   98-07-03 16:07:03 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     th81@umail.umd.edu, JNorton@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU

In a message dated 98-07-03 13:28:32 EDT, th81@umail.umd.edu
writes:

<< Actually, both BCF and the "standard model" bird orgin predict (or at
least do not reject) the idea that feathers predate _Archaeopteryx_.  >>

Actually, I see feathers/featherlike dermal structures in the
dinosaur/archosaur clade as far back as _Longisquama_. And I see keeled
ankylosaur scutes and spines, stegosaur plates and spines, sauropod dorsal
spikes, and other such dinosaurian dermal structures as probably deriving
from the protofeathers of the ur-dinosaur. True feathers, of a kind we would
recognize as feathers were we to see them fossilized, probably first appeared
sometime during the Triassic in the theropod-bird clade. (Rank speculation of
the most egregious kind, of course.)

Subj:   Re: Futabasaurus and Ryu
Date:   98-07-03 01:24:02 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     tons@ccs.logicsouth.com

In a message dated 98-07-02 20:12:39 EDT, tons@ccs.logicsouth.com
writes:

<< In karate, ryu, to the best of my limited knowledge of Japanese, generally
means "way";  as in Wado-ryu and Isshin-ryu being the systems or way of the
traditional Japanese karate styles Wado and Isshin. >>

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the syllable "ryu" had several meanings in
Japanese. (Anybody out there fluent in the language who can verify this?) My
friend Ryuichi Kaneko, a Japanese writer interested in dinosaurs, once
explained that his first name means "number one dinosaur" in his language.

Subj:   Re: FCF
Date:   98-07-02 16:39:34 EDT
From:   Dinogeorge
To:     JNorton@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU, dinosaur@usc.edu

In a message dated 98-07-02 15:23:11 EDT, JNorton@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU
writes:

<< With all the new discoveries and their implications, maybe a re-statement
 of DinoGeorge's "BCF" hypothesis should be "FCF" (feathers came
 first").  Agreeing on this may start to bring the two (or more) sides in
this debate closer together. >>

And here I thought FCF would be "flight came first." "Feathers came first" is
actually too obvious to require a theory.