[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Flight
>
> Bill Barbour wrote:
>
> >And what is the physiological evidence that archaeopteryx was a climber? Is
> >it definitive or speculative in nature?
>
> The hallux or big toe in _Archaeopteryx_ is opposed, which makes it easier
> to cling onto branches; as opposed to theropods whos feet are composed of
> non-opposable toes. Also the claws on _Archaeopteryx_ are apropos, since
> they are very clean i.e. not abraided, which has been proposed to indicate
> minimal contact with the ground, supposedly.
Okay, the last part I follow, but as for the opposable toes, I'm not
sure if that would mean too much, because didn't Velociraptor also
have opposed toes, or am I misunderstanding? Boy, the sight of a
Velociraptor in a tree is a truly scary thought...
>
> Chris
>
> cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au, nedin@ediacara.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
> the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
> of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong,
> it was all downhill from there.
I know I should have clipped that part out, but I just had to leave it
in; it's great...
>
>
=====================================================================
| Sean R. "Snake" Kerns e-mail: sean.kerns@sdrc.com |
| DoD# 1052 '48 CJ-2A '79 F-250 4x4 429 '93 750 Virago |
| Structural Dynamics Research Corporation '79 AQHA |
| These opinions aren't SDRC's... They may not even be MINE... |
=====================================================================