Re: Here I am again & Re: Archaeopteryx not the first bird, is the earliest ...

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

David Marjanovic wrote:

> - The only thing that I find false about the ground-up/trees-down
> dichotomy is that it's a polytomy instead. For example WAIR ("from the
> ground up the trees"...) is a third option, and so on.

Well, WAIR would be lumped into "ground-up", because the pro-avian is on the 
ground when it commences it's incipient flight behavior.  But I think you're 
right when you call it a polytomy, although another objection is that it is 
not really a "-tomy" at all: pro-avians may have divided their time between 
the ground and the trees, and both may have played a role in the evolution 
of the avian flight apparatus.

Michael Habib wrote:

> One note on the phugoid gliding model: I like some aspects of this model, 
> but there are some issues with it.  Not the least of these is the fact that 
> Chatterjee and Templin modeled their Arch. taking off from a launch point 
> 15 meters tall.  While trees of this size may have been present on the 
> European islands at the time, it is somewhat troubling that none of the 
> specimens of  Archaeopteryx, to the best of my knowledge, were preserved in 
> (or near) this forest habitat (which would have been restricted to inland 
> areas).

Remains of conifers have apparently been found in the Solnhofen limestones.  
Araucariaceae I think.  Cycadeaoids and gingkoaleans may also have been 
there, but I think these identifications may be suspect.

I'm not too sure what I think of the 'phugoid gliding' model.  But you're 
correct: if the height isn't optimal, then the birdie goes ker-splat, and 
that particular experiment in aerial locomotion comes to an abrupt end.

Cheers

Tim