[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Of course nonavian dinosaurs could fly - duh
In a message dated 9/26/09 12:16:21 AM, tijawi@yahoo.com writes:
<< I have to disagree this statement. The results of cladistic analysis do
not mandate a "ground-up" origin of flight. They never have. >>
It is true that cladistics does not automatically reject a dinosaur
arboreal origin of avian flight, but most cladistics have presumed it does do
so.
Why? In part because if birds evolved flight from the ground up then only
running bipedal theropods could be their ancestors, not those quadrupedal
arboreal thecodonts climbing about in the trees. Meanwhile birds could not be
dinosaurs if they evolved from quadrupedal arboreal archosaurs as they
anti-dinosaur folk think. It has been a simplistic argument of convenience on
both
sides.
The authors of the Anchiornis paper are correct that animals with such
extensive foot feathers are unlikely to have been well adapted for running
about
on the ground.
GSPaul
</HTML>