[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Question: Why did birds lose their teeth?
Naish's blog makes no mention of possible aerodynamic effects that I saw, and
(although it has been years since I read Rand) I am fairly certain he does not
Although I will be unsurprised if "no aerodynamic consequence" proves to be the
correct case, thr reason I mentioned it is that such structures are quite
common on flywings (phorids and fruitflies) -- and likely are aerodynamically
functional -- albeit at much lower Reynold's number.
Nor do any texts in my ken reference what seems obvious -- domesticated birds
are of little account, from the perspective of natural selection...
...to answer my own, largely rhetorical, 2nd question.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 10:42 PM EDT Dann Pigdon wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 13th, 2014 at 12:11 PM, don ohmes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Also: The list of species in which "vestigial" claws are found is not
>> negligible -- but do
>> domesticated birds count, unless claws are common in the wild-type
>Most of the vestigial claws I've seen on bird wings are so small they'd be
>completely lost beneath
>the feathers of the live bird, so would probably have no aerodynamic
>consequences at all. That
>may well be why they haven't been lost completely.
>The wing claws of emus and ostriches are anything but vestigial. Ratites don't
>have any flight
>requirements though, so there'd be no selective pressure to reduce their
>claws. They actually look
>like quite functional talons, so there may even be positive selection to keep
>them (whatever it
>Darren Naish has some great posts on his blog on the subject:
>Spatial Data Analyst Australian Dinosaurs
>Melbourne, Australia http://home.alphalink.com.au/~dannj