Re: The origin of flight: from the water up (still short!)

[Dino Guy Ralph <dinoguyralph@earthlink.net>]

Allan Edels wrote:

> AFAIK, _Archaeopteryx_ did not appear to have the stiffening structures
> (ossified tendons) that some dromaeosaurs had, and the tail feathers do not
> appear to be solidly interlinked.

The feathers appear to hold together as well as modern bird feathers do,
indicating that the barbs were held together with barbules.  And none of the
feathers is out of place.

>  This would seem to indicate that the tail
> was somewhat flexible and not necessarily rigid, as proposed.  (BTW, the
> Archie specimens [copies] that I've seen do not show the post-mortem
> curvature that appears in some dinosaurs - i.e. where the neck curls towards
> the back and the tail curls towards the front - toward each other over the
> back).

Look again at the Berlin specimen.  The tail is quite straight, and the neck
strongly curved, pulled up against the back.

> SNIP

> Feduccia even
> calculated that Archie could fly - even without endothermy.

Ruben was in on this, too.  But even if these scientists arrived at this
mathematical result, we don't have to assume that these small, bipedal, flying,
feathered animals with air sacs and four chambered hearts WERE ectotherms.  Why
couldn't metabolic homeothermy have appeared in the reptile lineage prior to the
appearance of birds?

--------Ralph W. Miller III
             ralph.miller@alumni.usc.edu