[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Bird /dino questions
>Maybe a dumb question, and I'm groping for something here, but do we
see
>a correlation between reducing tail length and lightening of the skull
>anywhere in the evolution of birds? Just that, aerodynamically, I
>imagine you want fore and aft equilibrium about the COG for flight (the
>wiings?), so each loss of tail length should be reflected in a
>corresponding loss of skull weight (or to a shorter neck, up to a
>certain point, after which you _have_ to reduce skull weight becuase
the
>neck vertebrae cannot be made any shorter)?.
Early birds did not have the lightening of the skull and reduction
of the tail correlation. Rahona and Archaeopteryx still had long caudal
series with many of the basic dromaeosaur features. Archaeopteryx
retained a postorbital and many other bones that ornithurines lack.
Though enantiornithines did reduce their tail to a pygostyle, their
skulls were basically similiar to that of Archaeopteryx. Confuciusornis
did have a relatively short neck, though many enantiornithines did not.
>Also, flying seems to imply that, if the COG is moved forward to the
>wings, then an upright stance when grounded is obliged, in order to
>bring the COG back over the (rear) legs? Voila, bi-pedalism could be
>the consequence of flight?
Actually, when a bird folds its wings, it is forced to stand near
vertically. So it seems when a bird folds its wings the center of
gravity shifts. This may be another explanation for wing folding.
MattTroutman
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com