Re: Pterosaurs in trees? NOT!

[Jonathon Woolf <jwoolf@erinet.com>]

Swift Claw wrote:
> 
> Oh?  And what good would that have done them?  I believe, that when we
> talk about an animals ancestors, we are talking about their ANCESTORS,
> not THEM.  Just because THEY might have long wings and be unsuited for
> life in the trees, doesn't mean the creatures that they evolved from
> weren't.  Just try to imagine how a creature "running and flapping"
> would evolve.  I don't see how that would hold any advantages.
> And they were also perfectly for powered flight, almost matching, if not
> matching those "much more capable fliers," birds.  Just because they are
> extinct, and birds alive today doesn't mean anything.  I am sure that no
> one on this list would say that dinosaurs (meaning pre-avian) were less
> effeciant than todays mammals because they are extinct.

I tend to agree.  If the cursorial model doesn't work for birds, then I
don't see why it would be any more likely for pterosaurs.

-- JSW