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

Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK



Thanks. I'm aware of the recent published works and the constraints.
You seem to agree, however, that Archie "may well have flown". My opinion is that it did fly, although probably not very well at least as compared to modern birds. But the fact that it had some rudimentary flight capabilities is, as you seem to agree, is not much in question. <<<

I apologize, I must not be making myself clear. I don't consider there to be overwhelming evidence for the flightless archie hypothesis, hence "it may well have flown". These is similarly a lack of overwhemling evidence that archie did fly (and the gap between the evidence and general perception is far larger here), so I consider it an open question. It is specifically this cavernous chasm between the data for/against flight in archie and the general perception that archie "certainly must have flown" that makes me feel it necessary to be the voice of dissent. It is perfectly in question as to whether or not archie flew, and people need to spend more time doing the ground work to establish if it flew, and if so how, before we start speculating as to what types of selective pressures may have lead to that style of flight.


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

www.skeletaldrawing.com


-----Original Message----- From: ptnorton <ptnorton@suscom-maine.net> To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at; dinosaur@usc.edu; dinoboygraphics@aol.com Sent: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 6:27 pm Subject: Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK


That's a pretty safe assumption, based on the analyses done to
date.<<Â
Â
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.Â
Â
Thanks. I'm aware of the recent published works and the constraints. You seem to agree, however, that Archie "may well have flown". My opinion is that it did fly, although probably not very well at least as compared to modern birds. But the fact that it had some rudimentary flight capabilities is, as you seem to agree, is not much in question. Â