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

Re: four winged Archaeopteryx

I still haven't been able to read the paper, and I don't have a strong opinion on Archie's flight capabilities, but...

However, his whole interpretative construct depends on his assumption that Archaeopteryx flew pretty well, and as I've argued too many
times, that's highly unlikely. Archaeopteryx could not lift its arms
above horizontal;

I need to learn more about that...

it did not have the supracoracoideus structure in
the shoulder;

Neither do bats, and its presence in pterosaurs is conjectural.

the furcula is rigid rather than flexible;

Bats and pterosaurs don't have such a thing at all. A flexible furcula clearly helps, but I can't see why it should be necessary.

the long bony tail provides a huge amount of drag rather than lift;


the ends
of the forelimbs have clawed fingers rather than primary feathers;

The wing tips are formed by primary feathers, not by claws. What modern birds have instead of the claws is the alula, and this is something Archie clearly lacked, unlike *Microraptor*, but like *Confuciusornis*. I don't know how analogous the propatagia of pterosaurs and bats are, but they don't look terribly similar...

Something else is obvious, however: Archie was not capable of sprawling its legs. "Four-winged" must thus be an exaggeration.