[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Archaeopteryx flight
David Marjanovic wrote:
however, looking at recent
ecosystems, there are always plenty of potentially competing fish eaters.
I've seen dolphins on TV hunting a large swarm of IIRC anchovis just below
the surface -- gulls took advantage of this and picked some fish up from
above, and a few seals joined in too. [snip] So it seems like there
normally are >enough fish to share around.
The waterways that separated the islands of the European archipelago were a
lot different to the open ocean. Also, _Archaeopteryx_ probably not have
the aerial prowess that gulls have to coast above the sea and dive down
whenever it spotted a fish. _Archaeopteryx_ would probably have had to hunt
for fish close to the shore - and the hypoxic lagoons that the specimens
came to grief in were probably rather short on biomass (at least of the
oxygen-breathing vertebrate variety).
* Paul also shows that it was a considerably worse runner than most other
theropods -- the ilium and various muscle attachment sites (cnemial crest
etc.) are very small.
Yes, but _Archaeopteryx_ did not need to run that fast - faster than a
lizard or a cockroach or whatever little critters it ate...
I disagree: the fingers flexed, and the claws pointed, more or less at a
right angle to the wing feathers. The exceptional development of finger III
in *Confuciusornis* shows that it was still used for something.
Climbing. Holding onto branches.
Indeed he thinks (or thought in 1988) that *Archaeopteryx* had a similar
locomotory repertoire to young hoatzins. I think that climbing is largely
ruled out, however.
And on what evidence why do you rule this out?
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp