Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK

[dinoboygraphics@aol.com]

> > > Thanks. I'm aware of the recent published works and the constraints. 
You seem to agree, however, that Archie "may well have flown". My 
opinion is that it did fly, although probably not very well at least as 
compared to modern birds. But the fact that it had some rudimentary 
flight capabilities is, as you seem to agree, is not much in question.  
<<<

I apologize, I must not be making myself clear.  I don't consider there 
to be overwhelming evidence for the flightless archie hypothesis, hence 
"it may well have flown".  These is similarly a lack of overwhemling 
evidence that archie did fly (and the gap between the evidence and 
general perception is far larger here), so I consider it an open 
question.  It is specifically this cavernous chasm between the data 
for/against flight in archie and the general perception that archie 
"certainly must have flown" that makes me feel it necessary to be the 
voice of dissent.  It is perfectly in question as to whether or not 
archie flew, and people need to spend more time doing the ground work 
to establish if it flew, and if so how, before we start speculating as 
to what types of selective pressures may have lead to that style of 
flight.


Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center
110 Carter Ranch Rd.
Thermopolis, WY 82443
(800) 455-3466 ext. 230
Cell: (307) 921-8333

www.skeletaldrawing.com


-----Original Message-----
From: ptnorton <ptnorton@suscom-maine.net>
To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at; dinosaur@usc.edu; dinoboygraphics@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 6:27 pm
Subject: Re: origin of bats/reply 2 to TMK


> > > That's a pretty safe assumption, based on the analyses done to 
date.<<Â
> Â
> I beg to differ; historically the majority of workers just assumed 
flight > without testing it. Recent papers that deal with the issue are 
fairly > split and point out several important constraints. Archie may 
well have > flown, but if so not in a manner very similar to crown 
group birds.Â
Â
Thanks. I'm aware of the recent published works and the constraints. 
You seem to agree, however, that Archie "may well have flown". My 
opinion is that it did fly, although probably not very well at least as 
compared to modern birds. But the fact that it had some rudimentary 
flight capabilities is, as you seem to agree, is not much in question. Â