[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: flight stroke (pretty short)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Waylon Rowley" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 4:12 AM
[about all the paragraphs that I snip without answering... that means that
either I agree, consider the discussion finished and am too lazy to say so,
or that I find nothing to answer. You choose. :-) ]
> > Hm... I think this implies that gliders would just
> > as quickly be outcompeted by incipient flappers.
> Pterosaurs had begun to decline by the LK, correct?
Maybe... but they weren't gliders or incipient flappers, if you mean that.
(Maybe I can blame pretty much on the Cenomanian-Turonian mass extinction.
Just guessing. :o) )
> > Might still provide a selectionary advantage if it
> > tumbled back far enough away :-)
> Yes, I suppose it would if there were a reason to fly
Ebel has supplied two possible reasons... flight (pun inevitable in
English), and the fact that fish can be seen more easily from above than
from in the water.
> > I just wonder what exactly the disadvantage of a
> > long tail is.
> It may just be an indicator of how much time an animal
> spends in the air.
> I still like the
> idea of flapping evolving from quadrupedal climbers
> reaching for branches. I don't see any problems with
> the hypothesis. Really, how could you shoot it down?
For bats? Not at all. For birds? By showing that their ancestors can't have
been climbers. Will probably require a few more fossils (or at least
descriptions) for a definite answer, but at the moment I do think they
weren't climbers. :-) (Remember that SVP abstract on chicken embryology --
the hallux is first in a normal theropodan position and descends and reverts