Am 28.05.2012 05:00, schrieb Tim Williams:
GSPaul <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote: > [...] Can't discuss this openly because some journals won't then > consider the paper.
And indeed, he didn't send that message to the list (or at least I never got it). Tim, be ashamed, you made the mistake I just made four hours earlier. List administrators, please consider deleting Tim's post.
However, now that I've seen what's going on, I find my mind entirely unblown, because I must immediately ask (as Tim did) if there's a clear way to distinguish branch-grasping from prey-grasping adaptations. How important is branch-grasping to secretarybirds and, I suppose, seriemas? Do they just occasionally do it because they can, or do they use it to enhance their reproductive success one way or another? -- Wikipedia says secretarybirds nest "at a height of 5 -- 7 m" "in *Acacia* trees", so that answers that question for one of them; *Cariama cristata* nests "on the ground or in a bush or tree up to 3 m above the ground"; *Chunga burmeisteri* has a very short article that doesn't mention nesting. So, there may not be a bird today that uses its feet to grasp prey but not branches, which would leave you without anything to test your hypothesis against.
Where do phorusrhacids plot?
Anthony Docimo <keenir@hotmail.com> wrote: > [...] So perhaps the question should be, of those pigeons, which > are in the same morphospace as *A. lithographica*? (and the same > for the birds of prey, trogons, galliforms) No, I don't think it makes a difference. The differences in locomotory styles (hip-based vs knee-based) means that using hindlimb proportions to compare _Archaeopteryx_ to *any* modern avian has profound limitations.
I agree.