Re: "Feathery fossil shows birds aren't dinosaurs"

["Rob Gay" <rob_redwing@hotmail.com>]

> Vultures aren't exactly the most aerodynamic of birds to begin with. I'm
> guessing a humming bird or a wandering albatross wouldn't be quite so
> care free.

This is probably true...we have both hummingbirds and vultures around our 
house, and I have never seen hummingbirds fight like the vultures on TV did. 
Although, vultures are much better gliders than hummingbirds. Strong flyers, 
no. Great gliders, yes. So, they do need to retain a good degree of 
aerodynamic intergity.

> Plus, vultures are scavengers that have to fight to get
> access to a carcass. What's the slight risk of irepairable feather
> damage to the certainty of starvation? Also, did they have their wings
> folded tightly against their bodies while they were prancing and
> cavorting? In which case, perhaps the most important flight feathers
> were protected well enough to risk a bit of rough housing.

> From what I remember it (It was nearly a week ago now), they had their wings 
slightly extended. My guess for this would be that they were trying to cover 
as much distance with their body as possible, but still keep their flight 
feathers safe.

> Please take this post with a grain of salt (or excess sulphur?). Just
> playing Devil's advocate.

Of course. :)
Peace,
Rob
AIM: TarryAGoat
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com