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

Re: origin of bats/reply to J. Headden

David Peters (davidpeters@att.net) wrote:

<No one said bipeds have to walk.>

  Why not? What bipeds (aside from this silly impression of bats) hve no 
constraints on locomotion?

  There are a few birds out there that stand on one leg. Does them make them 
monopeds? What constraint aplies to them and any other organism that just 
stands there on one leg? Bats don't even stand, they HANG. And the only other 
hanging vertebrates that use their feet for locomotion are various arboreal 
mammals such as tamanduas, sloths, kinkajous, and some primatiforms, as well as 
a few birds. These animals ACTUALLY WALK using their legs, and in the case of 
some birds like colies and parrots, can walk upside down (though often using 
their beak, so they are kinda tripeds, like kangaroos on occassion).

  You still have not argued for any reason why bats being "bipeds" MATTERS, 
since all the material reasons to compare bats to other bipeds would be 
locomotorally. There is no other animal in ... well ... existence known that 
seems to move into flight from a hanging suspensory position, and that theory 
has been pretty well debunked for pterosaurs for the numerous terrestrial 
features posited for them and the absence of any bat-like aspects to ANY of 
their legs.

<Except when they are inverted.>

  In which case they do not locomote.


  Jaime A. Headden