Re: FUCHSIA and the Ostrom Symposium Volume (long...)

["James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>]

David Marjanovic wrote:

> > It generally doesn't lead to an increase in speed (remember my car and
> > rope scenario).
>
> I don't. Could you repeat it or find it in the archives? Thanks in advance.

I'm sure you can find it in the archives if you're interested.  I don't have
time to look.  I've repeated it a couple of times before.

> > Also, don't forget that cursorial animals are also likely to have leg
> > power enough to get into the air by leaping without being obligated to do
> it by running.
>
> Basal pygostylians and Archie don't appear to have been really cursorial,
> though.

Let me rephrase that then.  Most animals that have leg power enough to leap or
run have power enough to get into the air by leaping without being obligated to
do it by running.

> > I remember the chickens on the farm where I grew up using flapping to help
> them turn, to great effect, particularly when I was chasing them.
>
> Interesting... I don't see how this could lead to flight, though.

I do.  But am not saying that it necessarily did so.

> I'm trying to find a way how they actually got the idea of doing it, of why
> an animal with wings etc. whose ancestors have never flown suddenly would
> find out that it can fly. This problem is IMHO commonly ignored.

Perhaps because it is so simple.  It's called gusts.  Remember how they affected
your plane when you were first learning how to fly, before you got used to them?

> > I believe Archie did have one, though not particularly well-developed.
>
> A supracoracoideus? The usual assumption is that it had one and many/all
> other theropods did, too, but it didn't work like in Pygostylia, instead it
> only pulled the arm forward.

I agree.  My response was triggered because the orginal statement was that they
didn't have one, not that it was differently oriented.

> When the wings meet in front of the body, a part of the air will be pushed
> forwards, thereby pushing the animal backwards.

Why?  I must be missing something.

> But a second look at Fig. 9
> of Gishlick's chapter shows that I was probably wrong, the predatory stroke
> is different :-] (Can't see how thrust can come out of this, as opposed to
> the wing stroke, either.)

I haven't seen the book, but don't have any problem with thrust being generated
by the predatory stroke.  Not that I think it was a specific precursor to the
flight stroke.