Re: Fwd: Gliders to Fliers? (Was Re: Ruben Strikes Back)

["Allan Edels" <Edels@email.msn.com>]

All:

    Earlier last year I sort of proposed a similar scenario to Dan's
(except that some of the reasoning was based on a suggestion
by Tom Hopp).  I happened to be thinking about this last week, as
I had recently observed several birds hopping around, and thought
that there must be some sort of connection. (Curious that I thought
of hopping dinos based on a statement by Tom Hopp!)   I still
think that cursorial/arboreal theropods led to the development
of birds.  [In case that last statement doesn't make sense - I mean
that small theropods that were active both on the ground and in
the trees - led to the birds].  By the way, I don't think that my idea
means that either BCF or BAMM are invalidated.

Repeating it:

============================================================================
==============
Re: MY THOUGHTS ON THE 'DINO/BIRDS'
SENT: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:14 AM

Just thought I'd add my own thoughts on this exciting topic:

SNIP

Reading Tom Hopp's notes about the use of feathers for brooding, and
protecting the nest, I was struck by a statement he off-handedly made:

>>      Furthermore, the practice must have brought some problems
>>along with it, such as stepping on your own feathers, dragging them in the
>>dirt, being blown away in a wind storm.

                            Wind-storm!!!

    Without any real evidence, what follows must of course be seen as pure
conjecture:

    Imagine a climatic change in some areas, where the temperature ranges
and moisture contents didn't change much from previous decades, but the
frontal systems changed their frequency.  By this I mean the cold-front to
warm-front (and vice versa) changes occurred more rapidly than before.  This
would create a situation where the climate was essentially the same, but
winds would have been more rapid, perhaps more constant (sort of like
Aruba).  Imagine that some small theropods had already evolved these strange
structures (feathers) for display, which included jumping up and away from
rival males, as well as making themselves look larger at will.  Imagine one
or more of these dinos getting caught in a sudden well-placed gust of wind,
and the resultant display and struggle for control (in the flight) producing
a new standard of excellence for the other dinos (of the same species) to
emulate to try to impress their prospective mates.  (I am suggesting that
some of the dinos that end up in the air may not necessarily land real
well - or even survive - and that others, with strong enough muscles in the
right places would have a better chance at a safe landing).  Also, a better
way to avoid larger predators.

    This little scenario makes somewhat more sense than the chasing insects
with arms/wings outstretched leading to flight; or the arboreal dinos
gliding, then learning powered flight (or as Dinogeorge calls it:
"ornithoptering" ).  I am not precluding the possibility that some arboreal
forms may have had the distinctive jumping and short-hopping that some birds
exhibit today in courtship or in tentative feeding situations, and that may
have helped them develop powered flight from the trees.

    My little scenario adds climatic pressure as a driver for evolutionary
change, something rarely mentioned in discussing dino to bird evolution.
(Yes, I know George, "Birds Came First" :-).

    As I said, this is truly speculation.  Any comments??

        Allan Edels
============================================================================
============


-----Original Message-----
From: dbensen <dbensen@gotnet.net>
To: Larry Febo <larryf@capital.net>; dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gliders to Fliers? (Was Re: Ruben Strikes Back)
SNIP
>    I do not say that the nuthatches' behavior is descended from their
dinosaur
>ancestors, they probably revolved the
>method because it works for animals with such a body type.  I am also not
saying
>that I am right and Dinogeorge is
>wrong, it makes just as much sense as mine does.  Only new fossils, or,
perhaps
>a better look at old fossils, can resolve
>this argument.
>
>
>Dan
>
>