[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: and origin of flapping
> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:31:02 -0800
> From: email@example.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: and origin of flapping
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Anthony Docimo <email@example.com> wrote:
> > that you keep saying theropods' bodies were hopelessly unable to ever
> > cobble together a way to take flight (while mammals were), then it begs the
> > question of why birds evolved at all - and we didn't just get earlier bats
> > or more pterodactyls.
> I believe he [Tim WIlliams] is saying that theropod bodies are not
> predisposed to *arboreality*, not that they aren't predisposed to
Unless I've misread the nature magazines, all the early fliers and gliders in
the theropod family tree, were found in or within walking distance of a forest.
That may be why I'm having trouble letting go of the "theropods in trees" idea.
> Unlike birds, pterosaurs and bats form their wings from skin stretched
> between digits, body, and hindlimbs. Unlike bats and pterosaurs, birds
> have decoupled hindlimbs that allow for cursoriality. It's pretty
> obvious that the evolution of flight in birds was significantly
> different from that in pterosaurs and bats.
Sadly, that didn't cross my mind; seriously.
> It's quite possible that
> the early stages did not involve arboreality.
Though that begs the question (at least to my mind), of why there were no
attempts/experiments with gliding or flight in any other decoupled cursorial
bipeds...one group of which lived alongside the theropods.