[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Protungulatum index; pterosaur finger.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bois" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:05 PM
> I would agree with you that pterosaurs may well have been superior in the
> large flying category. The question is why this should have helped
> pterosaurs compete?
It should have helped them avoid competition -- that way they were able to
occupy niches that were totally denied to any (known) bird of that time.
> I mean, size in and of itself is not an adaptive
> trait. Otherwise there would not be an intense selective pressure to keep
> creatures small!
Is there one? I mean, there is a selective pressure that keeps shrews small.
Apparently there was another selective pressure that kept sauropods big.
What keeps insects small is not a selective pressure but a structural
constraint. A general intense selective pressure against big size?
> > > If he is right about birds' abilities relative to pterosaurs',
> > Is he right? The aerodynamic relationships that he seems to be
> > assuming make no sense to me.
> He's talking about a competition where the stakes are absolute survival,
> not who can fly the longest distance, or bear the strongest loads.
I can't see how this doesn't relate to Romer's quote.
> > > because feathers confer greater manueverability to creatures of equal
> > Wow. Why would anyone think that?
> OK. This was the question I asked before I wanted to become involved in
> such a discussion. Bats have a wing spread across most
> fingers. Pterosaurs usually have a large part of the wing supported by a
> single finger. As David mentioned, this gives bats wonderful aerial
I didn't say the fingers did that. I said the cambered wing does that.
> Well, what about feathers? Birds are the most agile
> fliers we know; they have feathers; therefore feathers confer aerial
> agility. That is why I think it.
Firstly, if correct, this would be statistics with a sample of 1. Secondly,
if "agile" and "maneuverable" is something similar, then bats should be more
agile, at least the average bat should be more agile than the average bird,
> What I'm wondering--guessing--is that there are significant diferences in
> the time it takes to get feathered versus non-feathered first-time fliers
Why do you wonder in the first place? What reason could there be?
> Do large bat babies take off immediately
> after birth as some birds do?
Don't think there are any -- like most placentals bats are rather altricial
as young. Besides, those birds that do take off some hours after hatching
are the megapodes that have never seen their parents.
> David M. suggested this possibility for
Possibility... phew. Very, very wild speculation. There's just no evidence
against it at the moment. :-)
> > > Hoplelessly clumsy pterosaur walkers--relative to nimble waiting
> > > fliers,
> > [...]
> If they had to stay at the nest for extended periods of time--and those
> nests were accessible to birds--they would be in a similar position to
> that of the rhea.
But what if they nested, say, in colonies on tiny islands? Then the
situation is totally different than that of a rhea in the endless pampas.
> The rhea is constantly having to protect
> its chicks by keeping the hawk at bay, i.e, striking at it. Ground speed
> is relevant here.
Maybe only neck speed is relevant. I don't know what rheas do, but I can
imagine an azhdarchid sitting on its nest and completely covering it, saying
"not over my dead body" to everyone interested in eggs.
> I mean, if we are not fighting in the air, ground speed
> and agility must be relevant.
Maybe size is enough, see above.
> My impression of pterosaur locomotion is
> shaped somewhat by Walking with Dinos--is this a very bad thing?
Maybe not very, but they did make them more clumsy than they were. The maker
of *Pteraichnus* held its wings as vertically as its legs (same gauge).