[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feather Flap
Michael Habib wrote:
Which brings up the question of what characteristics we actually associate
with arboreality in birds (and/or near-bird theropods). The reversed,
gripping hallux is obviously a distinctive characteristic when it appears,
but I don't think we should be overly reliant on that character (it is also
worth pointing out that a reversed hallux does not always indicate arboreal
habits: the animal could also be secondarily terrestrial, as in
Well said. This was a point I was alluding to previously with _Gansus_ - a
shorebird (webbed feet, &c) with a reversed hallux, but probably weak
perching ability on account of the short hallux.
For one thing, the theropods in question may have been able to climb
somewhat quadrapedally. That changes the mechanics of climbing enough that
the correlation between arboreal habits and hallux morphology may be looser
than we expect.
I agree completely. The problem is trying to frame an ecomorphological
model for climbing in theropods that can be "tested". Something along the
lines of biomechanical studies combined with modern analogs - such as what
was done with the study of _Mononykus_'s forelimbs in a fairly recent study.
In addition, while tight gripping of branches is quite helpful and
important for modern arboreal birds, I am not convinced that it is required
for an arboreal existence (especially in animals with powered flight or
extensive gliding ability).
I'm very sure that tight gripping of branches is not required for an
arboreal existence. For example, at least one species of "flying squirrel"
(from Japan) has very stiff manual and pedal digits. It can't grasp tree
branches very well, but apparently it's excellent at climbing trunks. Then
again, as a squirrel, it does have quite mobile wrist and ankles - something
that theropods do *not* have.
One set of characters of note in the regard are actually structural
characters: extant arboreal birds (including modern passerines and
falconimorphs, for example) seem to fall within a similar range for certain
quantitative, structural characters associated with limb loading.
That sounds very interesting. Do you have a particular study in mind?
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i?m Initiative now.
It?s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07