Re: A New Hypothesis for the Origin of Flight?

["Aspidel" <aspidel@wanadoo.be>]

HP Rutger Jansma wrote:
> > And second, not all supposed arboreal dinosaurs had extremely elongated
> > tails, for instance, Archaeopteryx does not have an elongated tail.
Should
> > we conclude than that it was a ground-living bird?
>
HP David Marjanovic replies:
> Yes! Yes! Yes! (Though for other reasons.) :-)
>

Those ones:
http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/2002Apr/msg00103.html
and other messages of this thread.
When trying to imagine the behaviour of an extict animal, one has also to
study the paleoenvironment. In this case, trees were rare or absent, so I
can't imagine _Archaeopteryx_ being arboreal anymore.
Paleobotany refs, especially refs easy to understand for an amateur
paleoartist, are more difficult to find than dinosaur refs IMHO, for several
reasons.
But accurate refs always help...

Friendly - Luc J. "Aspidel" BAILLY