[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
Anthony Docimo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> clearly the argument seems to be becoming more and more that birds are no
> more dinosaurs than mammals are reptiles
Mammals aren't reptiles. Never have been.
> - the anatomy is so radically overhauled that we can't say the non-mammalian
> reptiles are at all like mammals, any more than we can
> say non-avian theropods are at all like avian theropods.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What I would say is that
the range of motion that theropod limbs are capable of his highly
constrained. These constraints limit the ability to climb or clamber
over uneven or elevated substrates, such as trees. These same
constraints do not apply to anurans, lepidosaurs, or small mammals.
> use of branches? paleontologists can't agree on if T.rex prefered live or
> dead prey - and that leaves evidence (teeth, teeth marks) :)
With one notable exception, I don't think paleontologists really
believe that _T. rex_ was an obligate scavenger.
> the sort of evidence you're asking for, would be a mummified tree branch
> with protobird clawprints on it. (and then someone would
> say "those marks are from after the branch fell")
No, the sort of evidence I'm asking for is arboreal adaptations in the
manus or pes for branch-grasping.