[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
- To: DML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Catch-22
- From: K Kripchak <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 10:27:53 +0100
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <CA+nnY_EbW3A3kJ4ZUB3C58+N3HCYLCf6U3YEH8hcYVA4ffmgnw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CANXNUxvQM=JojEBgdDRt0zyqQXS=PBRgqjn0KrSiJ-Tms7SD9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+nnY_EbW3A3kJ4ZUB3C58+N3HCYLCf6U3YEH8hcYVA4ffmgnw@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
Don, Anthony, Tim,
Thanks for responding and sorry it took so long to reply. Life interfered.
Anyway, Don and Tim... I get what both of you are saying, and
appreciate the responses. Yes, of course, I know this is a very
complicated issue, hence the reason why the topic is often revisited,
but no concrete conclusions are ever nailed down. Part of the reason
for this, I believe, is that discussions always seem to turn to the
So, maybe I should beat the dead horse with this question:
What about the forelimbs? Why is so much attention focused on the
feet, and the hands almost completely ignored?
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Tim Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> K Kripchak <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> The chatter in the recent “11th Specimen of Archaeopteryx” discussions
>> concerning capabilities and traits (or lack thereof) for climbing (NOT
>> “perching”) in theropods/basal birds reminded me that there is still
>> an 800-lb gorilla in the room wearing a pink t-shirt that is one size
>> too small with "Catch-22" scrawled across it in Air Force Blue...
>> There’s an obvious question that still hasn't received good,
>> convincing, direct answers...
> I'm so sorry about that. We really try and do our best here.
>> Were theropods/basal birds up in the trees BEFORE they possessed the
>> MODERN traits we currently use to define a bird as being arboreal?
>> If the answer is yes; what were those traits that allowed them to
>> climb into the trees?
>> If the answer is no; WHY did selection favor characteristics for an
>> arboreal lifestyle when theropods/basal birds were cursorial?
> That's just it: the question you raised doesn't appear to have a
> simple yes/no answer. If it did, this thread would have ended a long
> time ago (to the relief of many, I don't doubt). There are some
> characters pertaining to the pes of taxa such as _Microraptor_ and
> _Archaeopteryx_ that *might* have been involved in scansorial or
> arboreal behavior. Characters like a lower hallux, and elongated
> penultimate phalanges, for example. But these characters might
> equally have been the product of allometry, or involved in predation.
> If so, they still might qualify as incipient arboreal characters, if
> they were the raw material upon which more derived taxa (which were
> presumably volant) constructed a specialized arboreal pes.
>> Whales, before getting wet, didn't just decide to lose their hind
>> limbs, sprout flukes, and head for the sea, right?
> Right. IMHO stem-cetaceans provide a good analogy, because raoellids
> and pakicetids have both been interpreted as terrestrial quadrupeds
> that headed to water only occasionally, such as a refuge, or to feed
> on fish. Raoellids and pakicetids show minimal adaptations to an
> amphibious/aquatic lifestyle. The limb bones of both groups are
> pachyostotic ('osteosclerotic'), a trait that has been tied to
> increased submersion by these animals, with the heavier bones
> providing ballast. In all other respects, the postcranial skeletons
> of these stem-cetaceans are thoroughly terrestrial and cursorial.
> To return to theropods, it is possible that the ambiguous scansorial
> characters seen in the pes are indeed nascent arboreal characters in
> otherwise dedicated terrestrial/cursorial animals. I tend to think
> so. But I admit that this assertion comes from viewing these
> characters through the prism of what came after. Arboreality had to
> start somewhere, and the elaborate plumage suggests to me that the
> paravian integument had a big headstart on the osteology.
>> PS: Bit of trivia for you literary types/WWII buffs... Anyone catch
>> the reason for the "Air Force Blue" reference? ;-)
- Re: Catch-22
- From: David Marjanovic <email@example.com>