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

RE: Perching, climbing, roosting was Re: 11th specimen of Archaeopteryx




 
You know what the debate over how dangerous trees are for protobirds reminds me 
of?  Back when I was learning about whale evolution, I used to think "but 
wouldn't water be really dangerous for those early stages of amphibious 
proto-cetacean life?"  (there's crocs, sharks, hungry fish, etc)


> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:04:49 +1100
> Subject: Re: Perching, climbing, roosting was Re: 11th specimen of 
> Archaeopteryx
> 
> On Wed, Nov 9th, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Don Ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/8/2011 5:06 PM, Dann Pigdon wrote:
> > 
> > > If you climbed trees in the Mesozoic for safety, then they would have to 
> > > have been 
> considerably tall trees.
> > 
> > Why? If you mean that mega-theropods were combing through the Mesozoic 
> > canopy at night searching for 1 kg tidbits -- well, I doubt it.
> 
> Sauropods would consider a 1kg tidbit to be a convenient bite-sized snack.
 
 Maybe.  but they wouldn't take the time to search for that tidbit.
 

> 
> >> If your climbing abilities weren't much to write home about, then hiding 
> >> down low and out of
> >> sight might have been a better option. Especially if your cursorial 
> >> adaptations were better than 
> your
> >> aerial ones when it came to abandoning your hiding place and making a dash 
> >> for it.
> 
> > I don't see that -- speaking strategically, a passive glider that can 
> > run well should have a much better chance in a high place than it would 
> > dragging that long tail and wings through the bushes.
> 
> The problem with passive gliding is that it usually takes the subject 
> downward as well as across - 
> potentially closer towards the ground-based creature that disturbed it. 
> Unless of course
 
...it was disturbed by something else that was already in the tree.