windstorms and the evolution of cursorial flight (was Re: Fwd: Gliders to Fliers? (Was Re: Ruben Strikes Back))

["Martin Barnett" <martin.barnett3@virgin.net>]

Speculation though it is I love this idea,  If anyone bought the recent New
Scientist issue that included the ~Bizzarre supplement they may have read
about the Australian Galah that actually chooses to throw itself into 60kph
dust devils (known as Willy-willys) just because it enjoys being thrown out
the top, shrieking with delight, then circling around and going in again.
This could be a characteristic throwback to the evolution of flight.  I'm
not actually a proponent of the ground-up theory although I do feel it has
some very valid arguments.  This seems to me like the most plausible version
of it at first glance.
    I would just like to nominate the Galah as the cursorial theory's
mascot - it seems a little unfair that arboreal theorists have the Hoatzin
chick while ground-uppers go without.  Plus I like the idea of organisms
being supposed to have a sense of fun or playfulness since they probably had
one and palaeontology isn't in the practice of reconstructing that element
of their lives.
Yours,
          Samuel Barnett

----- Original Message -----
From: Allan Edels <Edels@email.msn.com>
To: Dinosaur Mailing List - Gen. Distribution <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gliders to Fliers? (Was Re: Ruben Strikes Back)


> All:
>
>     Earlier last year I sort of proposed a similar scenario to Dan's
> (except that some of the reasoning was based on a suggestion
> by Tom Hopp).  I happened to be thinking about this last week, as
> I had recently observed several birds hopping around, and thought
> that there must be some sort of connection. (Curious that I thought
> of hopping dinos based on a statement by Tom Hopp!)   I still
> think that cursorial/arboreal theropods led to the development
> of birds.  [In case that last statement doesn't make sense - I mean
> that small theropods that were active both on the ground and in
> the trees - led to the birds].  By the way, I don't think that my idea
> means that either BCF or BAMM are invalidated.
>
> Repeating it:
>
>
============================================================================
> ==============
> Re: MY THOUGHTS ON THE 'DINO/BIRDS'
> SENT: Monday, June 29, 1998 2:14 AM
>
> Just thought I'd add my own thoughts on this exciting topic:
>
> SNIP
>
> Reading Tom Hopp's notes about the use of feathers for brooding, and
> protecting the nest, I was struck by a statement he off-handedly made:
>
> >>      Furthermore, the practice must have brought some problems
> >>along with it, such as stepping on your own feathers, dragging them in
the
> >>dirt, being blown away in a wind storm.
>
>                             Wind-storm!!!
>
>     Without any real evidence, what follows must of course be seen as pure
> conjecture:
>
>     Imagine a climatic change in some areas, where the temperature ranges
> and moisture contents didn't change much from previous decades, but the
> frontal systems changed their frequency.  By this I mean the cold-front to
> warm-front (and vice versa) changes occurred more rapidly than before.
This
> would create a situation where the climate was essentially the same, but
> winds would have been more rapid, perhaps more constant (sort of like
> Aruba).  Imagine that some small theropods had already evolved these
strange
> structures (feathers) for display, which included jumping up and away from
> rival males, as well as making themselves look larger at will.  Imagine
one
> or more of these dinos getting caught in a sudden well-placed gust of
wind,
> and the resultant display and struggle for control (in the flight)
producing
> a new standard of excellence for the other dinos (of the same species) to
> emulate to try to impress their prospective mates.  (I am suggesting that
> some of the dinos that end up in the air may not necessarily land real
> well - or even survive - and that others, with strong enough muscles in
the
> right places would have a better chance at a safe landing).  Also, a
better
> way to avoid larger predators.
>
>     This little scenario makes somewhat more sense than the chasing
insects
> with arms/wings outstretched leading to flight; or the arboreal dinos
> gliding, then learning powered flight (or as Dinogeorge calls it:
> "ornithoptering" ).  I am not precluding the possibility that some
arboreal
> forms may have had the distinctive jumping and short-hopping that some
birds
> exhibit today in courtship or in tentative feeding situations, and that
may
> have helped them develop powered flight from the trees.
>
>     My little scenario adds climatic pressure as a driver for evolutionary
> change, something rarely mentioned in discussing dino to bird evolution.
> (Yes, I know George, "Birds Came First" :-).
>
>     As I said, this is truly speculation.  Any comments??
>
>         Allan Edels
>
============================================================================
> ============
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbensen <dbensen@gotnet.net>
> To: Larry Febo <larryf@capital.net>; dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Gliders to Fliers? (Was Re: Ruben Strikes Back)
> SNIP
> >    I do not say that the nuthatches' behavior is descended from their
> dinosaur
> >ancestors, they probably revolved the
> >method because it works for animals with such a body type.  I am also not
> saying
> >that I am right and Dinogeorge is
> >wrong, it makes just as much sense as mine does.  Only new fossils, or,
> perhaps
> >a better look at old fossils, can resolve
> >this argument.
> >
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
>
>
>