Re: Pterosaurs in trees? NOT!

[Nick Longrich <longrich@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

I agree with the preservational bias; rhamphorhynchus and Pteranodon may
have been analogues to long-wings like frigatebirds and pelicans in many
ways. However, from what I understand, the Eocene fossil record for land
bbirds is very good. In fact, it does not support the idea that songbirds 
were around back then- there are many other small birds filling many
songbird-like roles but they are paleognaths and other weird things. I
don't know if there is any good pre-KT evidence of modern birds. There
are fragments assigned to modern orders, but recall that the lithornids
distorted our view of avian evolution when identified to modern orders.
What I have heard about the late Cretaceous/Eocene fossil record sounds
like it could be consistent with Feduccia's hypothesis of an avian
mass-extinction and subsequent re-radiation.
> 
> Again, this could be more an artifact of the preferential preservation of
> marine and coastal habitats.  In fact, there are a few short-winged genera
> (including _Sordes_), which as I recall are from more inland habitats.  This
> is probably also why our record of fossil birds is biased towards shorebirds
> and waterfowl, even though the owls, woodpeckers, and songbirds must have
> been radiating and diversifying at the same time!
> 
> NP
>