[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Flight again (was Re: The Lizard of Oz)
David Marjanovic wrote:
> > asymmetrical feathers are not required for lift production.
> > of the moult is cheaper if the lifting feathers are asymmetrical
> > asymmetry allows use of a less massive shaft. Is it possible that
> > expenses are related to development of asymmetry in flight feathers?
> Given that all flightless birds moult... don't they?
Don't know. But I strongly suspect that feathers came before flight, so
see that in modern flightless birds it's relevant to the issue except
would lead one to believe that birds may have been moulting before they
developed flight, and that therefore moult expenses may be related to
development of asymmetry in flight feathers as I speculated before. If
flying and moulting, then modifying the feather so that it is
going to allow you to reduce the mass in the feather shaft, and thereby
the biological expense of the moult (extra food is required to produce
massive feather shaft required for flight with a symmetrical feather).
was my original point in my first post.
> > David Marjanovic and someone else [HP Tim Williams] wrote:
> > > > This design
> > > > pre-adapted the symmetrical vaned feathers for lift. The wing
> > > > then
> > > > became asymmetrical. Evolution of flight by successive
> > >
> > > Of course by successive exaptations!