[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
> On Wed, Nov 9th, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Don Ohmes <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> >> 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.