Re: Sci. Am. - present. [long]

[se1aard@itis.com (Seth Ellestad)]

>I have bored this list before with my conviction that bird ancestors could
>have been both arboreal and non-gliding - a point that even Pat Shipman's
>excellent book does not seem to appreciate this point.  I think this is
>because everyone assumes that the purpose of flight is to get from point A
>to point B - but many living birds do not use flight in this way.  Instead,
>they make short fluttering dashes to reach prey that would otherwise be out
>of reach - either a flying insect, or something sitting on a leaf or limb
>too light to support the bird's weight - often returning to the same perch.
> A whole range of birds do this - even some fruit-eating birds.
>
>If proto-wings could have allowed an Archie ancestor to jump a few inches
>higher, or stay airborne for a few seconds longer, they might have greatly
>increased its ability to take a whole range of foods.  This could happen
>either in trees or on the ground, but perhaps is more likely  (as in modern
>birds) in trees.

Didn't G.S. Paul suggest something similar to this in _Predatory Dinosaurs
of the World_?

Seth A. Ellestad.