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

Re: nectarivory/insectivory/frugivory -- a thought experiment re: archosaurs & bats

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Stephan Pickering wrote:
> [...]
> same with a small flying dinosaur or pterosaur. On the
> other hand, living trochilids (hummingtheropods) and
> glossophagine bats will hover above a flower, their
> faces stuck in the flower, the nectar obtained, the
> petals still intact, both feeders being efficient
> pollinators. Could small pterosaurs hover like a
> [...]
> Is there any evidence as to the possible tongue
> morphology and/or hyoid-lingual morphology of
> pterosaurs and the feathered dinosaurs? Some of the
> feathered dinosaurs emerging in the main from China
> are remarkably small.
> Another thought: nectarivores (be they bats or moths
> or hummingtheropods) rely on an extensible tongue to
> retrieve the nectar (moths with a straw-like
> proboscis), and the faces of moths/bats/trochilids are
> areas for pollen adherence. It is not inconceivable
> that during the end-Cretaceous, the flying pterosaurs
> and dinosaurs may have had faces coloured with pollen.

Just out of curiousity, what form did flowers of that period have? Did
they look like our current day flowers or what?

If they were different in some aspects, things like tongue morphology
would be different too and may be harder to recognize.