[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: implications of Microraptor and bird flight origins
I don't have much time, I just wanted to respond to a few things that Tom Holtz
and Greg Paul said. I've been previously unaware of any claims that the
hemoral heads of sinornithosaurs were spherical, I'll have to look into that.
Certainly would be good evidence of adaptation to an arboreal lifestyle. I'd
point out that the new specimen in Nature is not preserved spread eagle, and
the sigle specimen (Dave) may or may not be a statistical anomalie. I agree
with GSP that there is no reason to assume a priori that new (or any)
dromaeosaurs are further from moderns bird than Arcaheopteryx is. On the
other hand, with the growing data set, I would expect that at a certain point
that a cladistic analysis will catch the major reversals to flightlessness, if
indeed they did happen.
Despite the quality (and cahrisma!) of his research, I'm not convinced that
Dial's paper explains the origins of aerodynamic surfaces, though it may well
explain the transition to flight and/or an arboreal lifestyle. Which brings me
to another problem. The aquisition of aerodynamic controls, even if aquired
totally in a terrestrial context, would probably make it much easier to invade
arboreal niches, confounding our ability to interpret the ancestral conditionin
the fossil record. On the other hand, it's equally plausible that the
development aerodynamic surfaces evolved in an arboreal context could be
exapted for the terrestrial ballistic phase hunting style of derived
dromaeosaurs.
What disturbs me about all these lines of discussion on the list (my
apologies to Marius if I misunderstood his post), is that there are few
falsifiable predictions being made. With heaps of due respect to XU et al, I
think most of the evidence they used to support the arboreal origin of avian
flight is essentially ad hoc. The only exception is their claim that the leg
feathers would interfere with terrestrial locomotion, which I disagree with for
the reasons given in my previous post.
More later...
Scott Hartman
University of Wyoming
(307) 265-1045