[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: keesey@gmail.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: and origin of flapping
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.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
> flight.
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.