Re: Origin of feathers

[Michael <tons@netside.com>]

Ronald Orenstein wrote:
> 
> >The fatal problem with the ground up theory of flight origins is simply that
> >running doesn't generate enough energy long enough for a nearly wingless,
> >nearly featherless animal to become airborne. Gravity does. Powered flight is
> >the ultimate solution to the Falling Problem.
> 
> Or, as I have suggested to massive indifference from all, to the Leaping
> Problem (or, how do I get that insect/frog/lizard/whatever that is just out of
> reach?).  Of course, in a tree the Leaping Problem would also be a Falling
> Problem as you want to get back to the branch you leapt from - but this
> doesn't
> mean that, if my scenario has any merit, an adaptive advantage to a higher
> leap
> necessarily only manifested itself in trees. It could have, but it could have
> done so on the ground and later conferred an advantage to tree dwellers.
> Thuis
> in my scenario you can't tell ground-up from trees-down, nor does it matter.
> --
> Ronald I. Orenstein                           Phone: (905) 820-7886
> International Wildlife Coalition              Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116
> 1825 Shady Creek Court
> Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2          mailto:ornstn@inforamp.net
> 
When George suggested small theropods developing into birds, I got the
same image of very small theropods leaping around in the bushes for
insects, etc.  They might not have had to have modern bird feet (ie., we
shouldn't really expect that initially).  Could some have gotten high
enough in the canopy to warrant evolving gliding mechanisms?  Could one
activity beget other changes in anatomy and physiology?