Re: [wingstroke]

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > > Could it be David that you have some particular motive for trying to
tie
> > > _Archaeopteryx_ to the water...?  ;-)
> >
> > Sure! I can't explain the evolution of the wingstroke otherwise! :-)
>
> Generation of thrust, in a terrestrial cursor (a la Burgers and Chiappe,
1999)

I've read the Burgers & Chiappe paper. I think they make the same, erm,
improbable assumption as old Baron Nopcsa. Why does _no other_ terrestrial
cursor, including running birds, use this?

> or in an arboreal parachuter or glider.

Neither needs a wingstroke _for anything_.

> Either way, the wingstroke
> was co-opted from the predatory stroke.

Probably, but why was it exapted for anything at all? "That is the question
here"...