RE: to flight or not to flight (was: Island-dwelling dinosaurs)

[Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com>]

 > > To be fair, it's easier to say "secondarily flightless" than "secondarily 
 > > rudimentarily". > It may be easier to say, but it may not be accurate. 
 > > Then what term would be accurate?

 

 If there is no other term, then linguistics tells us* that one of two things 
will happen:

- a new term is coined.

- a less-than-accurate term is expanded. 

 

* = back to that other thread! ;)


> Throughout the non-ornithothoracean Paraves, there seems to have been
> a great deal of experimentation in aerial locomotion going on. Lots
> of little theropods with big wings, but not much of a flight apparatus
> to speak of. The distinction between "flighted" and "flightless" was
> blurred, so the term "secondarily flightless" is meaningless, and
> potentially misleading.

 

 Then why does anyone use it? (i'll hazard a guess that its in part so 
non-experts can follow along the news and discoveries about dinosaurs) > If 
velociraptorines evolved from ancestors that had some aerial


>  capabilities (which seems likely), then this does not necessarily make
> taxa such as _Velociraptor_ secondarily flightless.

 

 Okay, I understand that. It's the terminology (or lack thereof) which I 
question... 

 

Then what would _Velociraptor_ be, then? "Secondarily arborealless"? 
"Secondarily non-volant(less)"?

 

 One of those brings to mind sauropods.