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

Re: 11th specimen of Archaeopteryx



On 10/31/2011 1:10 AM, Tim Williams wrote:

I would have said roosting was related to locomotive activity, insofar
as the animal would be sitting, standing or perching on (or in) the
tree for long periods.  That means that it has to adopt a stable
posture while sleeping or resting.  There is no evidence in the
anatomies of_Archaeopteryx_  or any non-avian theropod that they were
capable of this.  How did they prevent themselves from toppling off a
limb, when the manus and pes had minimal (if any) prehensile
abilities?

Just guessing -- none of you guys have ever so much as climbed a tree?

Further, the 'tuck-in' sleeping posture adopted by_Mei_  seems
incompatible with roosting.  Now, I'm not saying that all paravians
adopted this posture, or that those that did adopted it whenever they
slept or rested.  But the fact remains that Archie and non-avian
paravians lack any adaptations for roosting, and at least one (_Mei_)
was preserved in a posture that showed it rested and slept on the
ground.

Interesting. The part about Mei, that is... I will read up later.

Besides, I still don't see how tree-climbing qualified as a refuge for
small paravians, when so many potential predators were large - at
least as large as many tall trees.

LOL. I really do not think the mega-theropods were targeting crow-sized animals, period. Or sticking their noses into thickety places. Even should that be the case -- hey, at least in a tree they would not get stepped on.

Walking in the woods at night it is common to disturb roosting animals -- they ALWAYS bail on the opposite side of the tree -- it is a very effective escape strategy.

Good night, folks.