DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds1 Palaeontologia Electronica http://palaeo-electronica.org Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds1 Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs2 reviewed by Kevin Middleton 1by Gregory S. Paul Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2002, 472 pp. ISBN: 0-8018-6763-0 $54.00 (cloth) 2edited by Luis M. Chiappe and Lawrence M. Witmer University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002, 536 pp. ISBN: 0-520-20094-2. $95.00 (cloth) When Ostrom (1973, and early evolution of 1974, 1975, 1976) and birds. Coupled with this Bakker and Galton (1974) interest in avian relation- revived interest in an evo- ships is the frequently lutionary relationship contentious issue of the between theropod dino- origin of avian flight. Two saurs and birds, Archae- new books take radically opteryx, Ichthyornis, and different approaches in Hesperornis were the their treatments of these only well-known species topics. of Mesozoic birds. Dur- In Dinosaurs of the ing the past fifteen years Air: The Evolution and fossil evidence of the diversity of Mesozoic birds Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds (The Johns and their non-avian theropod relatives has grown Hopkins University Press, 2002) Gregory Paul lik- tremendously. Whereas only a few fossil avian taxa ens himself to a modern day Gerhard Heilmann. In were available to Gauthier (1986) in his landmark 1926, Heilmann, an illustrator like Paul, wrote The cladistic analysis of the systematic position of Origin of Birds. After presenting a great deal of birds, a tremendous number of avian species are comparative anatomical data suggesting a link now known from the Mesozoic, and new taxa are between birds and theropod dinosaurs, Heilmann being described at a remarkable pace. infamously concluded that the two could not be Recent years have seen a proliferation of closely related. At the time, clavicles had not been books on the increasingly broad topic of the origin discovered among non-avian theropods, and, Middleton, Kevin. 2003.Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds; and Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Palaeontologia Electronica, 6: 5, book review 1, 148KB; http://palaeo-electronica.org/paleo/toc.htm MIDDLETON: DINOSAURS OF THE AIR AND MESOZOIC BIRDS under a strict interpretation of Dollo's Law, Heil- support his claim, most of which is presented in an mann hypothesized that birds evolved from a unjustifiably authoritative style, Bakker oversimpli- group of basal archosaurs, the "thecodonts" fies the history and present state of dinosaur stud- (Gauthier, 1986). Whereas Heilmann failed ies." Data and conjecture are rarely delineated in because of an incomplete fossil record - theropod Dinosaurs of the Air. clavicles were not discovered until 1936 - Paul's For example, Paul states that "flight, even the effort to present a synthetic book on the origin of flapping version, is a comparatively simple opera- birds and of avian flight fails for rather different rea- tion" (p. 131). He then erroneously compares flap- sons. ping flight in birds to the flight of fixed-wing aircraft. Paul's book follows in the footsteps of recent He presents his analysis of avian flight as if it is quasi-technical books on birds and their dinosau- well supported by scientific evidence, although, rian ancestors. This lineage of nominally scientific even after more than 50 years of research, the books began in 1986 with the publication of Dino- mechanisms of avian flight - anatomical, biome- saur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mys- chanical, aerodynamic - are still not well under- tery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction by stood. Furthermore, Paul virtually ignores fifteen Robert T. Bakker, which quickly became the bible years of research on the kinematics, neuromuscu- of self-proclaimed "dinosaurologists," of whom lar control, and aerodynamics of avian flight. It is Paul is one. Bakker's book was followed shortly by egregious to present such a scenario as though it Paul's first book, Predatory Dinosaurs of the World: is based upon actual data rather than just his own A Complete Illustrated Guide (1988), which carried intuition. When reviewing Feduccia's The Origin Bakker's analyses several steps further. After the and Evolution of Birds, Brush (1997, p. 450) cau- tremendous recent growth in the number of Meso- tioned, "The reader must temper the words know- zoic bird fossils, several authors have written ing that the use of assumptions about evolutionary books in which they attempt to integrate the new processes or adaptational scenarios can be mis- fossil avian and non-avian theropod discoveries of leading when trying to understand historical events the last fifteen years to develop a coherent picture or relationships." Readers of Dinosaurs of the Air of the origin and evolution of birds and avian flight. would do well to follow this advice. These books include Alan Feduccia's The Origin Frequently Paul summarily dismisses con- and Evolution of Birds (1996), The Rise of Birds: trasting viewpoints. For example, he writes that "... 225 Million Years of Evolution by Sankar Chatter- Ruben and co-workers' analysis is without suffi- jee (1997), and Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and cient basis and must be rejected" (p. 202). Padian the Evolution of Bird Flight, written by Pat Shipman (1989, p. 283) noted a similar pattern in Paul's first (1998). book, Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, and com- These books have been applauded for their mented that "Paul takes a confident, assertive attempts to bring paleontology and evolution to the tone, but often fails to credit or discuss the ideas of general public in an accessible manner. However, others with more than a curt dismissal, notably they also have been soundly criticized in the pale- when they controvert his own." ontological community for their speculative and Early in Dinosaurs of the Air, Paul states that unfounded assertions as well as their frequent "a computer generated cladistic analysis of bird ori- summary dismissal or outright omission of sources gins is premature at this time" (p. 21). His attitude or contrasting views. Both of these faults contribute reveals a misunderstanding of the goal of cladistic to an overall lack of scientific rigor. While the aims analysis: to generate hypotheses of relationships of each book have been quite different, their collec- between organisms. To say that not enough com- tive failures are startlingly similar. plete specimens are known to even try a cladistic Unfortunately, Paul's new book offers more of analysis is to defeat the purpose and render any the same and can be regarded as just another evolutionary hypotheses useless. I agree with entry in this increasingly crowded bookshelf. Criti- Clark et al. (in Mesozoic Birds; p. 33), who state cisms that have previously been leveled against that "the importance of phylogenetic hypotheses to the books by Bakker, Paul, Feduccia, Chatterjee, the study of evolution cannot be overstated." Any and Shipman are equally applicable to Dinosaurs discussion of evolution must be predicated upon of the Air. an hypothesis of relationships. Presently the tool One of the principal criticisms of these books requiring the fewest number of untestable hypothe- has been that they rely on confident assertion ses is cladistic analysis. Because a cladogram, by rather than scientific data to support their hypothe- definition, has the fewest ad hoc hypotheses of ses. Of Bakker's Dinosaur Heresies, Ostrom change, any other methodology will have less (1987, p. 58) wrote, "In marshaling evidence to explanatory power. 2 MIDDLETON: DINOSAURS OF THE AIR AND MESOZOIC BIRDS In a sense, Paul's line of argument throughout gin of birds and evolution of flight, rather than the the book is backward. He begins the book with an uneven, sparsely documented presentations that overview of non-avian and avian theropod skeletal have been offered so far. The authors expect to be anatomy. From this base, he discusses forelimb taken seriously by the paleontological community, function and "The Beginnings of Flight," moves on but the approach used precludes such acceptance. to "The Early Evolution of Flight," and concludes In conclusion, I agree with Benton's (1990, p. with "Who is Related to Whom and Why?" By put- 350) assessment that Predatory Dinosaurs of the ting function and evolution before phylogeny, in the World "will do great good in promoting paleobiol- end he is left searching for the most likely organism ogy to a wide readership, but it may do great harm in which flight would have evolved, as he imagines to the professional study of dinosaurs." While the it to have evolved. He goes so far as to say, "The goals may be admirable, the methods employed by methodology I use here presumes that the pres- Paul in both Predatory Dinosaurs of the World and ence of a birdlike character in a group that is Dinosaurs of the Air misrepresent the science of clearly unrelated to birds is not of phylogenetic paleontology and the study of evolution and ulti- importance" (p. 171). mately discredit the science as a whole. The end result and perhaps most damning In contrast, Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads fault is that Dinosaurs of the Air and the other of Dinosaurs (University of California Press, 2002), books mentioned herein simply lack scientific rigor. edited by Luis M. Chiappe and Lawrence M. Wit- They are not reviewed by peers and thus are not mer, is a multi-author work with two purposes: first, subject to the same scrutiny. I will not contend that to survey the present state of Mesozoic avian pale- peer review is a cure-all for poor science or faulty ontology; and, second, to provide full descriptions reasoning, but some of the more fatuous state- of specimens previously only preliminarily dis- ments made by these authors certainly would not cussed in the literature.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Second Edition
    MASS ESTIMATES - DINOSAURS ETC (largely based on models) taxon k model femur length* model volume ml x specific gravity = model mass g specimen (modeled 1st):kilograms:femur(or other long bone length)usually in decameters kg = femur(or other long bone)length(usually in decameters)3 x k k = model volume in ml x specific gravity(usually for whole model) then divided/model femur(or other long bone)length3 (in most models femur in decameters is 0.5253 = 0.145) In sauropods the neck is assigned a distinct specific gravity; in dinosaurs with large feathers their mass is added separately; in dinosaurs with flight ablity the mass of the fight muscles is calculated separately as a range of possiblities SAUROPODS k femur trunk neck tail total neck x 0.6 rest x0.9 & legs & head super titanosaur femur:~55000-60000:~25:00 Argentinosaurus ~4 PVPH-1:~55000:~24.00 Futalognkosaurus ~3.5-4 MUCPv-323:~25000:19.80 (note:downsize correction since 2nd edition) Dreadnoughtus ~3.8 “ ~520 ~75 50 ~645 0.45+.513=.558 MPM-PV 1156:~26000:19.10 Giraffatitan 3.45 .525 480 75 25 580 .045+.455=.500 HMN MB.R.2181:31500(neck 2800):~20.90 “XV2”:~45000:~23.50 Brachiosaurus ~4.15 " ~590 ~75 ~25 ~700 " +.554=~.600 FMNH P25107:~35000:20.30 Europasaurus ~3.2 “ ~465 ~39 ~23 ~527 .023+.440=~.463 composite:~760:~6.20 Camarasaurus 4.0 " 542 51 55 648 .041+.537=.578 CMNH 11393:14200(neck 1000):15.25 AMNH 5761:~23000:18.00 juv 3.5 " 486 40 55 581 .024+.487=.511 CMNH 11338:640:5.67 Chuanjiesaurus ~4.1 “ ~550 ~105 ~38 ~693 .063+.530=.593 Lfch 1001:~10700:13.75 2 M.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerhard Heilmann Og Teorierne Om Fuglenes Oprindelse
    Gerhard Heilmann gav DOF et logo længe før ordet var opfundet­ de Viber, som vi netop med dette nr har forgrebet os på og stiliseret. Ude i verden huskes han imidlertid af en helt anden grund. Gerhard Heilmann og teorierne om fuglenes oprindelse SVEND PALM Archaeopteryx og teorierne I årene 1912 - 1916 bragte DOFT fem artikler, som fik betydning for spørgsmålet om fuglenes oprindelse. Artiklerne var skrevet af Gerhard Heilmann og havde den fælles titel »Vor nuvæ• rende Viden om Fuglenes Afstamning«. Artiklerne tog deres udgangspunkt i et fossil, der i 1861 og 1877 var fundet ved Solnhofen nær Eichstatt, og som fik det videnskabelige navn Archaeopteryx. Dyret var på størrelse med en due, tobenet og havde svingfjer og fjerhale, men det havde også tænder, hvirvelhale og trefingrede forlemmer med klør. Da Archaeopteryx-fundene blev gjort, var der kun gået få årtier, siden man havde fået det første kendskab til de uddøde dinosaurer, af hvilke nog­ le var tobenede og meget fugleagtige. Her kom da Archaeopteryx, der mest lignede en dinosaur i mini-format, men som med sine fjervinger havde en tydelig tilknytning til fuglene, ind i billedet (Fig. 1). Kort forinden havde Darwin (1859) med sit værk »On the Origin of Species« givet et viden­ Fig. 1. Archaeopteryx. Fra Heilmann (1926). skabeligt grundlag for udviklingslæren, og Ar­ chaeopteryx kom meget belejligt som trumfkort for Darwins tilhængere, som et formodet binde­ led mellem krybdyr og fugle. gernes og flyveevnens opståen. I den nulevende I begyndelsen hæftede man sig især ved lighe­ fauna findes adskillige eksempler på dyr med en derne mellem dinosaurer, Archaeopteryx og fug­ vis flyveevne, f.eks.
    [Show full text]
  • Dating Dinosaurs
    The PRINCETON FIELD GUIDE to DINOSAURS 2ND EDITION PRINCETON FIELD GUIDES Rooted in field experience and scientific study, Princeton’s guides to animals and plants are the authority for professional scientists and amateur naturalists alike. Princeton Field Guides present this information in a compact format carefully designed for easy use in the field. The guides illustrate every species in color and provide detailed information on identification, distribution, and biology. Albatrosses, Petrels, and Shearwaters of the World, by Derek Onley Birds of Southern Africa, Fourth Edition, by Ian Sinclair, Phil and Paul Scofield Hockey, Warwick Tarboton, and Peter Ryan Birds of Aruba, Curaçao, and Bonaire by Bart de Boer, Eric Birds of Thailand, by Craig Robson Newton, and Robin Restall Birds of the West Indies, by Herbert Raffaele, James Wiley, Birds of Australia, Eighth Edition, by Ken Simpson and Nicolas Orlando Garrido, Allan Keith, and Janis Raffaele Day Birds of Western Africa, by Nik Borrow and Ron Demey Birds of Borneo: Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak, and Kalimantan, by Carnivores of the World, by Luke Hunter Susan Myers Caterpillars of Eastern North America: A Guide to Identification Birds of Botswana, by Peter Hancock and Ingrid Weiersbye and Natural History, by David L. Wagner Birds of Central Asia, by Raffael Ayé, Manuel Schweizer, and Common Mosses of the Northeast and Appalachians, by Karl B. Tobias Roth McKnight, Joseph Rohrer, Kirsten McKnight Ward, and Birds of Chile, by Alvaro Jaramillo Warren Perdrizet Birds of the Dominican Republic and Haiti, by Steven Latta, Coral Reef Fishes, by Ewald Lieske and Robert Meyers Christopher Rimmer, Allan Keith, James Wiley, Herbert Dragonflies and Damselflies of the East, by Dennis Paulson Raffaele, Kent McFarland, and Eladio Fernandez Dragonflies and Damselflies of the West, by Dennis Paulson Birds of East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, and Mammals of Europe, by David W.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan Feduccia's Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: What Reptiles
    Leigh Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:9 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/9 BOOK REVIEW Open Access Alan Feduccia’s Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: what reptiles gave rise to birds? Egbert Giles Leigh Jr Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China, properly. This is a great pity, for his story is wonderful: by Alan Feduccia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, his birds would have made a far better focus for this 2012. Pp. x + 358. H/b $55.00 book than the dispute. This book’s author is at home in the paleontology, So, what is this dispute that spoiled the book? The anatomy, physiology, and behavior of birds. Who could scientific argument is easily summarized. It started be more qualified to write on their origin and evolution? when a paleontologist from Yale University, John Ostrom, This book is unusually, indeed wonderfully, well and unearthed a 75-kg bipedal theropod dinosaur, Deinonychus, clearly illustrated: its producers cannot be praised too buried 110 million years ago in Montana. Deinonychus highly. It is well worth the while of anyone interested in stood a meter tall, and its tail was 1.5 m long. It was active: bird evolution to read it. Although it offers no answers Ostrom thought that both it and Archaeopteryx,which to ‘where birds came from’, it has God’s plenty of fascin- lived 40 million years earlier, were warm-blooded. Deinony- ating, revealing detail, knit together in powerful criticism chus bore many skeletal resemblances to Archaeopteryx, of prevailing views of bird evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Specimen of Microraptor Provides Unique Evidence of Dinosaurs Preying on Birds
    Additional specimen of Microraptor provides unique evidence of dinosaurs preying on birds Jingmai O’Connor1, Zhonghe Zhou1, and Xing Xu Key Laboratory of Evolutionary Systematics of Vertebrates, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China Contributed by Zhonghe Zhou, October 28, 2011 (sent for review September 13, 2011) Preserved indicators of diet are extremely rare in the fossil record; The vertebral column of this specimen is complete except for even more so is unequivocal direct evidence for predator–prey its proximal and distal ends; pleurocoels are absent from the relationships. Here, we report on a unique specimen of the small thoracic vertebrae, as in dromaeosaurids and basal birds. Poor nonavian theropod Microraptor gui from the Early Cretaceous preservation prevents clear observation of sutures; however, Jehol biota, China, which has the remains of an adult enantiorni- there does not appear to be any separation between the neural thine bird preserved in its abdomen, most likely not scavenged, arches and vertebral centra, or any other indicators that the but captured and consumed by the dinosaur. We provide direct specimen is a juvenile. The number of caudal vertebrae cannot evidence for the dietary preferences of Microraptor and a nonavian be estimated, but the elongate distal caudals are tightly bounded dinosaur feeding on a bird. Further, because Jehol enantiorni- by elongated zygapophyses, as in other dromaeosaurids. The rib thines were distinctly arboreal, in contrast to their cursorial orni- cage is nearly completely preserved; both right and left sides are thurine counterparts, this fossil suggests that Microraptor hunted visible ventrally closed by the articulated gastral basket.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Avian Evolution Phylogeny and Evolution of the Aves
    Phylogeny and Avian Evolution Phylogeny and Evolution of the Aves I. Background Scientists have speculated about evolution of birds ever since Darwin. Difficult to find relatives using only modern animals After publi cati on of “O rigi i in of S peci es” (~1860) some used birds as a counter-argument since th ere were no k nown t ransiti onal f orms at the time! • turtles have modified necks and toothless beaks • bats fly and are warm blooded With fossil discovery other potential relationships! • Birds as distinct order of reptiles Many non-reptilian characteristics (e.g. endothermy, feathers) but really reptilian in structure! If birds only known from fossil record then simply be a distinct order of reptiles. II. Reptile Evolutionary History A. “Stem reptiles” - Cotylosauria Must begin in the late Paleozoic ClCotylosauri a – “il”“stem reptiles” Radiation of reptiles from Cotylosauria can be organized on the basis of temporal fenestrae (openings in back of skull for muscle attachment). Subsequent reptilian lineages developed more powerful jaws. B. Anapsid Cotylosauria and Chelonia have anapsid pattern C. Syypnapsid – single fenestra Includes order Therapsida which gave rise to mammalia D. Diapsida – both supppratemporal and infratemporal fenestrae PttPattern foun did in exti titnct arch osaurs, survi iiving archosaurs and also in primitive lepidosaur – ShSpheno don. All remaining living reptiles and the lineage leading to Aves are classified as Diapsida Handout Mammalia Extinct Groups Cynodontia Therapsida Pelycosaurs Lepidosauromorpha Ichthyosauria Protorothyrididae Synapsida Anapsida Archosauromorpha Euryapsida Mesosaurs Amphibia Sauria Diapsida Eureptilia Sauropsida Amniota Tetrapoda III. Relationshippp to Reptiles Most groups present during Mesozoic considere d ancestors to bird s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin of Birds
    The Origin of Birds Birds have many unusual synapomorphies among modern animals: [ Synapomorphies (shared derived characters), representing new specializations evolved in the most recent common ancestor of the ingroup] • Feathers • Warm-blooded (also in mammals) • Specialized lungs & air-sacs • Hollow bones • Toothless beaks • Large brain Technical name for birds is Aves, and “avian” means “of or concerning birds”. • Cervicals very different from dorsals, allowing neck to fold into “S”-shape • Backwards-pointing pubis • Synsacrum (sacrum fused to pelves; pelvic bones • Fibula reduced to proximal splint fused together) • Astragalus & calcaneum fused to tibia • Proximal caudals very mobile • Hinge-like ankle joint • Pygostyle (distal caudals all fused together) • Furcula - (the wishbone) • Tarsometatarsus (distal tarsals fused to • Forelimb very long, has become wing metatarsals; all metatarsals fused together) • Carpometacarpus (semilunate carpal block fused • Main pedal digits II-IV to metacarpals; all metacarpals fused together) • Pedal digit I reversed, placed at bottom of • Three fingers, but digits all reduced so no unguals tarsometatarsus 1 Compare modern birds to their closest relatives, crocodilians • Difficult to find relatives using only modern animals (turtles have modified necks and toothless beaks, but otherwise very • different; bats fly and are warm-blooded, but are clearly mammals; etc.) • With discovery of fossils, other potential relations: pterosaurs had big brains, “S”- shaped neck, hinge-like foot, but wings are VERY different. • In 1859, Darwin published the Origin; some used birds as a counter-example against evolution, as there were apparently known transitional forms between birds and other vertebrates. In 1860, a feather (identical to modern birds' feathers) was found in the Solnhofen Lithographic Limestone of Bavaria, Germany: a Late Jurassic formation.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of the Early Cretaceous Enantiornithine Bird Rapaxavis Pani
    Anatomy of the Early Cretaceous enantiornithine bird Rapaxavis pani JINGMAI K. O’CONNOR, LUIS M. CHIAPPE, CHUNLING GAO, and BO ZHAO O’Connor, J.K., Chiappe, L.M., Gao, C., and Zhao, B. 2011. Anatomy of the Early Cretaceous enantiornithine bird Rapaxavis pani. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 56 (3): 463–475. The exquisitely preserved longipterygid enantiornithine Rapaxavis pani is redescribed here after more extensive prepara− tion. A complete review of its morphology is presented based on information gathered before and after preparation. Among other features, Rapaxavis pani is characterized by having an elongate rostrum (close to 60% of the skull length), rostrally restricted dentition, and schizorhinal external nares. Yet, the most puzzling feature of this bird is the presence of a pair of pectoral bones (here termed paracoracoidal ossifications) that, with the exception of the enantiornithine Concornis lacustris, are unknown within Aves. Particularly notable is the presence of a distal tarsal cap, formed by the fu− sion of distal tarsal elements, a feature that is controversial in non−ornithuromorph birds. The holotype and only known specimen of Rapaxavis pani thus reveals important information for better understanding the anatomy and phylogenetic relationships of longipterygids, in particular, as well as basal birds as a whole. Key words: Aves, Enantiornithes, Longipterygidae, Rapaxavis, Jiufotang Formation, Early Cretaceous, China. Jingmai K. O’Connor [[email protected]], Laboratory of Evolutionary Systematics of Vertebrates, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, 142 Xizhimenwaidajie, Beijing, China, 100044; The Dinosaur Institute, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA; Luis M. Chiappe [[email protected]], The Dinosaur Institute, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Ex− position Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA; Chunling Gao [[email protected]] and Bo Zhao [[email protected]], Dalian Natural History Museum, No.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing the Neoflightless Hypothesis: Propatagium Reveals Flying Ancestry
    J Ornithol DOI 10.1007/s10336-015-1190-9 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Testing the neoflightless hypothesis: propatagium reveals flying ancestry of oviraptorosaurs 1 2 Alan Feduccia • Stephen A. Czerkas Received: 4 September 2014 / Revised: 31 December 2014 / Accepted: 23 February 2015 Ó Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2015 Abstract Considerable debate surrounds the numerous Zusammenfassung avian-like traits in core maniraptorans (ovirap- torosaurs, troodontids, and dromaeosaurs), especially in the Die ,,Neoflightless‘‘-Hypothese im Test: Halsflughaut Chinese Early Cretaceous oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx, (Propatagium) offenbart flugfa¨hige Vorfahren der which preserves modern avian pennaceous primary remi- Oviraptorosauria ges attached to the manus, as is the case in modern birds. Was Caudipteryx derived from earth-bound theropod di- Es gibt eine ausgiebige Debatte u¨ber die zahlreichen vo- nosaurs, which is the predominant view among palaeon- gela¨hnlichen Eigenheiten der Maniraptora (Oviraptosaurus, tologists, or was it secondarily flightless, with volant avians Troodontidae, Dromaeosaurus), vor allem des (gefiederten) or theropods as ancestors (the neoflightless hypothesis), Oviraptorosauria Caudipteryx aus der fru¨hen chinesischen which is another popular, but minority view. The discovery Kreidezeit, der genau wie rezente Vo¨gel Handschwingen here of an aerodynamic propatagium in several specimens hatte, die an den Handknochen ansetzen. Stammt Cau- provides new evidence that Caudipteryx (and hence ovi- dipteryx von den nur am Erdboden lebenden Theropoda ab - raptorosaurs) represent secondarily derived flightless die unter den Pala¨ontologen vorherrschende Meinung -, oder ground dwellers, whether of theropod or avian affinity, and war er sekunda¨r flugunfa¨hig und stammte von flugfa¨higen that their presence and radiation during the Cretaceous may Theropoden ab - die ,,Neoflightless‘‘-Hypothese, eine alter- have been a factor in the apparent scarcity of many other native, wenn auch nur von Wenigen unterstu¨tzte These.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae - ALAN FEDUCCIA (2020)
    Brevum Curriculum Vitae - ALAN FEDUCCIA (2020) Position: S. K. Heninger Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Biology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Education: Ph.D. Zoology University of Michigan, l969 (NSF Predoctoral Fellow) M.A. Zoology University of Michigan, l966 B.S. Zoology Louisiana State University, l965 (pdf of 2008 museum article attached). Languages: French, Spanish, Italian (conversational). S. K. Heninger Distinguished Professor, University of North Carolina, 1994-2007 (emeritus). Chairman, Department of Biology, University of North Carolina, July 1997-2002. Chairman, Division of Natural Sciences, UNC, 1996-1997; resigned to become Chair. Associate Chair, Department of Biology, July, l982 -1992. Research Associate, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, 1978-1987. William R. Kenan, Jr. Visiting Professor, Smithsonian Institution, 1978. Assistant, Associate, Full Professor, Biology UNC, 1971-74, 1974-79, 1979-2007. Assistant Professor of Biology, Southern Methodist University, 1970-71. Lecturer in Biology, University of Michigan, 1969. Fellow, American Ornithologists’ Union, 1976. Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994. Who’s Who in America, 2004. Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award, 2018. Naming Recognition: -Presbyorniformipes feduccii, 1995, Presbyornis-like webbed trackway (Eocene) named for Alan Feduccia who identified the trackmaker. -Confuciusornis feducciai, 2009, new species of 120-million-year-old, earliest beaked bird (below), named by Chinese scientists, for Alan Feduccia: “for his contributions to his study of the origin and evolution of birds.” 1 -Feducciavis loftini, 2011, Miocene tern, named by Smithsonian scientist, for Alan Feduccia, citing “his many contributions to the study of fossil birds and his dedication to truth in the search for bird origins.” -Microraptor (four-winged Chinese fossil) named “Alan” for children’s book Comet’s Jurassic Adventure (2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin and Diversification of Birds
    Current Biology Review The Origin and Diversification of Birds Stephen L. Brusatte1,*, Jingmai K. O’Connor2,*, and Erich D. Jarvis3,4,* 1School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Grant Institute, King’s Buildings, James Hutton Road, Edinburgh EH9 3FE, UK 2Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 3Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA 4Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] (S.L.B.), [email protected] (J.K.O.), [email protected] (E.D.J.) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.003 Birds are one of the most recognizable and diverse groups of modern vertebrates. Over the past two de- cades, a wealth of new fossil discoveries and phylogenetic and macroevolutionary studies has transformed our understanding of how birds originated and became so successful. Birds evolved from theropod dino- saurs during the Jurassic (around 165–150 million years ago) and their classic small, lightweight, feathered, and winged body plan was pieced together gradually over tens of millions of years of evolution rather than in one burst of innovation. Early birds diversified throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous, becoming capable fliers with supercharged growth rates, but were decimated at the end-Cretaceous extinction alongside their close dinosaurian relatives. After the mass extinction, modern birds (members of the avian crown group) explosively diversified, culminating in more than 10,000 species distributed worldwide today. Introduction dinosaurs Dromaeosaurus albertensis or Troodon formosus.This Birds are one of the most conspicuous groups of animals in the clade includes all living birds and extinct taxa, such as Archaeop- modern world.
    [Show full text]
  • Body and Limb Size Dissociation at the Origin of Birds: Uncoupling Allometric Constraints Across a Macroevolutionary Transition
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE doi:10.1111/evo.12150 BODY AND LIMB SIZE DISSOCIATION AT THE ORIGIN OF BIRDS: UNCOUPLING ALLOMETRIC CONSTRAINTS ACROSS A MACROEVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION T. Alexander Dececchi1,2 and Hans C. E. Larsson3 1Biology Department, University of South Dakota, 414 E Clark Street, Vermillion, South Dakota 57069 2E-mail: [email protected] 3Redpath Museum, McGill University, 859 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6 089457 Received May 30, 2012 Accepted April 17, 2013 The origin of birds and powered flight is a classic major evolutionary transition. Research on their origin often focuses on the evolution of the wing with trends of forelimb elongation traced back through many nonavian maniraptoran dinosaurs. We present evidence that the relative forelimb elongation within avian antecedents is primarily due to allometry and is instead driven by a reduction in body size. Once body size is factored out, there is no trend of increasing forelimb length until the origin of birds. We report that early birds and nonavian theropods have significantly different scaling relationships within the forelimb and hindlimb skeleton. Ancestral forelimb and hindlimb allometric scaling to body size is rapidly decoupled at the origin of birds, when wings significantly elongate, by evolving a positive allometric relationship with body size from an ancestrally negative allometric pattern and legs significantly shorten by keeping a similar, near isometric relationship but with a reduced intercept. These results have implications for the evolution of powered flight and early diversification of birds. They suggest that their limb lengths first had to be dissociated from general body size scaling before expanding to the wide range of fore and hindlimb shapes and sizes present in today’s birds.
    [Show full text]