Re: [wingstroke]

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

> >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?
>
> This is an argument often aimed against a "ground up" origin of flight.
> However, the most plausible theory on the origin of flight in insects
> suggests that the earliest stages of flight in this group evolved without
> the assistance of gravity.  Modern Plecoptera display this behavior to
some
> extent.  But there are no modern insects which re-capitulate the incipient
> stages of insect flight.  AFAIK, anyway (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Hey! I didn't imply I prefer trees-down -- actually I like it even less!
Are Plecoptera the stoneflies? These often stand on the water surface and
flap their wings to move forward. Skimming horizontally on water surfaces is
AFAIK thought to be a precursor stage to insect flight.

> > > or in an arboreal parachuter or glider.
> >
> >Neither needs a wingstroke _for anything_.
>
> They need thrust to stop them from descending.  A glider can generate an
> airfoil to give it lift, but it can't stay in the air forever.  For that
you
> need the flight stroke.

Same as above -- why do none do it today? (Even though I have no better idea
what bat ancestors did...)
Some modern gliders can glide over 100 m. This is close enough to "staying
in the air forever" for all practical purposes, I'd say.