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

Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK

That's a pretty safe assumption, based on the analyses done to date.<<

I beg to differ; historically the majority of workers just assumed flight without testing it. Recent papers that deal with the issue are fairly split and point out several important constraints. Archie may well have flown, but if so not in a manner very similar to crown group birds.

Scott Hartman Science Director Wyoming Dinosaur Center 110 Carter Ranch Rd. Thermopolis, WY 82443 (800) 455-3466 ext. 230 Cell: (307) 921-8333


-----Original Message-----
From: ptnorton@suscom-maine.net
To: dinoboygraphics@aol.com <dinoboygraphics@aol.com>; david.marjanovic@gmx.at <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>; dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK

On 6/23/2008, "dinoboygraphics@aol.com" <dinoboygraphics@aol.com> wrote:

Almost certainly?  In an organism that doesn't even preserve evidence
of feathers on the thumb???

I said "analogous to". I did not say it had an alula. An alula functions by affecting the air flow over the wing in a way that delays stall. Clawed fingers, if elevated, could have performed that same function.

You are assuming apriori that archie a)

That's a pretty safe assumption, based on the analyses done to date.

and b) was arboreal.

I'm not assumming that at all. I agree with Mayer (2002?) that Archie was likley facultatively arboreal, but not an obligate tree dweller.

If you assume that archie landed in trees, then it sure seems like it
had _better_ have an alula, but none of the specimens preserve evidence
of such.

Again, it doesn't take too careful a reading of my post to see that I did NOT say it had an alula, only the functional aerodynamic equivalent of one in the exposed manus claws.

not having an
alula would be consistent with the lack of a reversed hallux, the short
length of the hallux, the lack of strong felxor tubercles on the pes
claws, the long non-sprawling hindlimbs,

These all point to the likelihood of Archie not being able to perch very well, but have nothing to do with flight, per se. They do support the idea of Archie landing on trunks, rather than on branches, as I suggest.