[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Campbell's even crazier than a MANIAC? (archeopteryx climbing)
> > Setting aside true arboreality for the moment - how
> well would they be
> > have been able to use their claws as crampons for
> ascending trunks, rocks,
> > whatever?
> Don't crampons work side-to-side? Sickle claws worked
> top-down and probably
> had a cutting edge. They were not round in cross-section.
As an analogy. IONO the name of the stuff even in German. Basically, how well
was Archie equipped for ascending near-vertically and possibly on somewhat soft
material (like a trunk)?
I find the entire idea of a truly perching critter ist not very well supported
by anything. Rather perhaps a mainly terrestrial animal that was able to get to
locations that were some distance off ground and then was able to show the
world what essentially was the most sophisticated form of gliding flight ever.
Perhaps go for a few 100 meters, flap occasionally (but it was built so badly
for *true* self-powered flight that it flapping was not really important on a
regular basis). A variation of the theme of colugos, _Rhacophorus_, _Draco_,
gliding squirrel etc, but unlike these decidely derived from an animal that was
terrestrial in the first place.
Any true ground-up flight would run into problems with ground clearance. Being
unable to flap forcefully and sustainedly, Archie would be a WIG for
considerable distance. Then there is the question of ground cover; there were
no grasses IIRC, but grasses are relatively sophisticated plants and other
ground cover may have been present (Sedimentation rates of clastic material
might allow an estimation of ground cover). Anything growing at least at human
knee height would have interfered with getting airborne and perhaps the first
part of flight (if it was growing densely enough to cause ground effect).
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen