[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Theory Sez Flight Evolution Linked To Parental Care
At 2:54 PM -0500 2/1/02, TomHopp@aol.com wrote:
Regarding what little we have heard about Carey's theory, it's not quite the
same as the Orsen/Hopp concept. By claiming a middle ground between arborial
and cursorial theories, Carey probably gets everybody mad at him over one
thing or another. Hopp&Orsen, on the other hand come down squarely, and in no
uncertain terms, in favor of the cursorial concept of Ostrom and others.
Still, knowing that future references to "feathers got long for brooding"
will probably cite Carey, not us, as first to raise the issue, is
frustrating. There is of course, always Jeff Hecht's news coverage of our
Dinofest presentation in New Scientist in 1998 ("Let me take you under my
wing") but that's not a peer reviewed article by Hopp and Orsen, is it?
No, but it is evidence that you presented it at a legitimate
scientific conference, which counts for something.
I've seen Carey's paper, and it postulates a series of evolutionary
steps, starting with beaks evolving as a "point source" to feed young
and manipulate things to build a nest. Feathers then evolved to
preserve body heat, long forearms with long feathers evolved for
brooding (you're not cited). Then the feathered dinosaurs climbed the
trees to escape nest predators, and started flapping on the way down.
It is not persuasive. For starters, other reptiles have beaks,
including turtles, which the last I looked were not airborne. -- Jeff
Jeff Hecht science & technology writer
525 Auburn St. Auburndale, MA 02466 USA
V 617-965-3834 f 617-332-4760
email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
For fiber optics: http://www.fiberhome.com
Correspondent, New Scientist magazine
Contributing editor, Laser Focus World