Re: birds and pterosaurs

[jrc <jrccea@bellsouth.net>]

MikeT, I tend to agree with you on this, in that I doubt very-high-level 
partitioning (I do believe there was substantial partitioning).  The 
pterosaurs that I usually work on (Qsp & Qn) appear to have been inland 
animals, freshwater feeders.  That said, pterosaur wing planform is quite 
effective at extracting atmospheric energy from marine and shoreline 
processes.  More so than the birds of the time.  At that time, bird wings do 
not appear to have had those specializations (they didn't develop till about 
5 million years after the pterosaurs were gone), so most birds (depending 
upon their specific niche) would have been at a tremendous disadvantage over 
the water and near the shore.  That said, I'd still bet that there were some 
birds that made a decent living near the shore, and a number of pterosaurs 
that did quite handily inland.
JimC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Taylor" <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>
To: <brushes2@juno.com>
Cc: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: birds and pterosaurs


> Seriously, this sort of very-high-level partitioning seems pretty
> nonsensical to me.  Given the huge morphological diversity of both
> these clades, proposing that pterosaurs preferred shorelines and birds
> preferred inland areas seems like suggesting a similar distinction
> between, say, mammals and "reptiles".  In reality there will surely be
> many members of both groups living in each environment.