[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: flying Archie
Hear, hear! Absolutely!
If evolution is the null hypothesis, Achie-style flight (whatever that was) was
inferior to the modern style. Unless, of course, there has been some
fundamental change in the global flight environment...
And for Ian, when "they" don't answer a question, it often means nobody knows,
which of course usually implies "good question". }: D
Just a guess, but I think due to the long bony tail tail, it is reasonable to
expect a high wing beat frequency (see GSP's post on front vs rear limb
configuration) and a "heads-up" attitude, IF Archie had a flapping mode. And I
agree that he likely did.
----- Original Message ----
From: T. Michael Keesey <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 7:23:14 PM
Subject: Re: flying Archie
On 9/23/06, Tim Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I don't like thinking of _Archaeopteryx_ flight as
> 'inferior' to modern avian flight - just different in certain important
If it wasn't "inferior", then why did the modern style take over? You
could argue that it was linked to something else that provided a
significant advantage, but in the absence of any such explanation it
seems simplest to assume that the modern style is "superior" (i.e.,
confers significant reproductive advantage).
(Of course, Archie's style must have been "superior" to that of its
T. Michael Keesey
The Dinosauricon: http://dino.lm.com
Parry & Carney: http://parryandcarney.com