[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: 11th specimen of Archaeopteryx
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: 11th specimen of Archaeopteryx
- From: Don Ohmes <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:59:59 -0400
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport2.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <CAJ=SJBD8Ux03LTSqoEENQ4LvE-yKK44QVF3BoT4D7J5FggFf8Q@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAC9B06F.542Ffirstname.lastname@example.org> <4EA48E2E.email@example.com> <CAJ=SJBD8Ux03LTSqoEENQ4LvE-yKK44QVF3BoT4D7J5FggFf8Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
On 10/24/2011 1:51 PM, Matthew Martyniuk wrote:
This boils down to "well, there may be some other explanation other
than arboreality we don't know about yet." That may be true. But are
there any studies that propose what that may be? Off the top of my
head I recall that wings have been proposed as functioning in
maneuverability during fast running. Do asymmetrical remiges aid this?
Any studies on the topic? Have any alternate functions of feather
asymmetry ever been proposed and researched? If not, how does this
refute the arboreality hypothesis? We already know that modern birds
use such feathers to get into high places and/or fly, and it's
unlikely Archie was doing the later.
Putting a safety-seeking diurnal ground-foraging feathered biped into a
tree at night is a good way to evolve an Archie-style body -- not
because they must evolve wings to get up into the tree, but rather
because wings, asymmetrical remiges and passive flight capabilities are
advantageous when getting down to the ground the next morning. Or even
that night, should the safe tree suddenly become not so safe.
Of the many alternatives suggested I prefer the ground-foraging
tree-rooster (GFTR) lifestyle for creating Archie-type bodies because it
(and only it, in my view) explains fully 1) the wing-claws, essential
for the rudimentary climbing skills needed to access the roost (and the
attendant potential energy necessary to evolve passive flight), 2)
asymmetrical remiges, 3) limited wing upstroke, 4) obvious running
ability and 5) weak or non-existent keel.
Imagine an evil professor has placed your persona in an Archie body and
sent you back to the Mesozoic just before sundown -- your 1st concern is
surviving the night, and finding an easy tree to get into is an
alternative, as engineering skills are useless when you have no hands.
When the sunrises the next morning, you will be hungry -- should you spy
a careless bite-size critter on the ground below, gliding or parachuting
down is certainly more likely to result in a meal than trying to clamber
down. So you thank your lucky stars you are not arboreal, and give it a go.
If you miss the creature, or are still hungry, then it is time to use
those long legs to find and catch another mouthful. Again you grateful
to not be arboreal, but rather cursorial. When the day is done, then
time to clamber up up into bed. So what if you are not optimized for
climbing? It ain't like you are going to stay there all day.
GFTR is a viable lifestyle, and provides a seamless incremental
theoretical path from feathered (symmetrical or not) cursorial biped all
the way to full flight. As such, I think it is under-appreciated.
We need to learn a lesson from the BANDits; it's not enough to shoot
down a hypothesis without proposing any alternative.
Nah, that's OK -- we will probably never know, and it is even a stretch
in my view to call the various scenarios hypotheses.
If too much is
made of feather asymmetry, it's only because few people have proposed
or been able to support any alternate hypotheses.