Re: Archaeopteryx flight

[jrc <jrccea@bellsouth.net>]

I'd agree with Ian's assessment.  It appears to be specialized for cruising 
flight -- which doesn't require the modern alignment for the 
supracoracoideus muscle, doesn't require exceptional power on the 
downstroke, and doesn't require a functional alula.  As I mentioned 
previously, it is not designed for slow flight.  So, it could probably fly 
reasonably well, but also probably launched and landed rather differently 
than many modern birds.
JimC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Barber" <augray@sympatico.ca>
To: "Dinosaur Mailing List" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Archaeopteryx flight


> At 09:54 AM 10/19/2005 -0700, Ian Paulsen wrote:
> > HI:
> >  I've been reading differing view about how well Archaeopteryx could fly.
> > Some sources say it was just a glider, others say it could fly like a
> > modern day bird. What is the current thinking about its flight patterns?
>
> A) Archaeopteryx lacked a triosseal canal, which indicates that the tendon 
> from the supracoracoideus muscle (which assists in the wing's upstroke in 
> modern flying birds) wasn't in its current position.
>
> B) Archaeopteryx lacked a V-shaped ulnare, which helps to prevent the wing 
> from buckling on the downstroke.
>
> C) Archaeopteryx seems to have lacked a ossified sternum for the 
> attachment of flight muscles.
>
> D) It lacked an alula, which assists in low-speed flight and 
> maneuverability control.
>
> To me, all this suggests that its flight ability was far from that of a 
> modern bird.
>
> > --
> >
> > Ian Paulsen
> > Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
> > A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
> > "Rallidae all the way!"