Quetzalcoatlus ecology (was T. rex vision)

[Michael Habib <mhabib5@jhmi.edu>]

> Dr Naish concludes that, based on the anatomical evidence, 
> "azhdarchids were stork-like generalists, picking up assorted 
> invertebrate and vertebrate prey from shallow water and/or terrestrial 
> environments."  I like his line of reasoning, although I doubt it's 
> the last word on the topic.  I hope his blog on azhdarchid 
> ecomorphology, by reference to modern analogs, gets morphed into a 
> paper.

Like Jim, I also find the stork analog unlikely.  I think Darren 
(despite being quite an insightful guy) has overlooked how storks 
actually feed; their feeding behavior actually has a lot of 
similarities to that of herons.  In fact, storks sometimes snap up 
small birds that are airborne.  Storks are rapid strike predators.  
Opportunistic yes, but not dippers.

It is also worth noting that Dr. Naish pins some of his conclusions on 
assumptions about Quetzalcoatlus flight parameters (and flight 
mechanics in general) that are in error.  For example, he seems to 
confuse the adaptations for gliding and convective soaring.  Vultures 
are great convective soarers; they're not great gliders.  More to the 
point, Dr. Naish uses a broad-wing, low aspect ratio model of Quetz. 
planform to help reject the vulture-type hypothesis.  This would, in 
fact, be evidence _for_ a vulture-like flight mode.  I happen to 
disagree with that wing reconstruction for various reasons, and thus 
also reject the obligate scavenger model, so I agree on that point in 
the end.  It is important to reject ideas for the right reasons, 
however.

There are also some errors concerning which locomotor modes have strong 
hindlimbs relative to the forelimbs, at least for the bird analogs.  
Note that length and robustness (or, more accurately, strength) should 
not be confused.

All that said, I love Dr. Naish's blog.  Thanks to Darren for making 
such an informative and well-written blog available.  I just happen to 
disagree with some of the points raised in this case.

Cheers,

--Mike H.