Re: Fwd: Re: birds DID NOT evolve from ther[o]pods

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> "Primal Dude" forwarded me this today, sent to him from a listmember whom
I
> have too much respect for to name here

Ah. Thanks a lot, that was me:
> >>I agree that the "Pouncing Proavis" hypothesis he [me] supports can't
> >>explain the evolution of the wing stroke, but could you be more
specific?
:-)

> (P.D. was citing it, I think, to convince me that he wasn't
> alone in disagreeing with me [...]):

If this is that way then he has completely misunderstood me. (I showed off
with my own work on the subject... maybe he hasn't even read the whole mail
before he forwarded it.) I was asking him for the reasons, if he has any,
why he flamed around so much on people's "ignorance". If he thinks that all
"bird-dinosaur" people are exactly the same then he is wrong, but likewise
he were wrong should he think BAND is a monolithic block. Of course he isn't
even alone in agreeing with Feduccia et al. (just nearly). Doesn't matter.

> Actually, I think my model of a tree-climbing ambush predator does explain
> the wingstroke: Small theropods leaped from trees and used the predatory
> stroke to grab prey on the ground.  (Perhaps this explains the more
elevated
> glenoid as well?)  The fortuitous lift and thrust components became the
> foundation for further selection.  This is a "flapping start" model, but
one
> which is gravity-assisted.

I see. But how are lift and thrust beneficial in grabbing prey?