|
|
Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Phillip Bigelow (bh162@scn.org)
Sun, 27 Oct 1996 19:05:19 -0800
Robert Gotschall wrote:
>
> Phillip Bigelow wrote:
> > Apparently, you are repsonding to my statement that there are *no*
> > examples of aquatic (or even semit-aquatic) animals (living or
> > extinct) that are bipedal. <pb>
>
> I agree, this argument is defiantly weak for AAT. It seems to me that
> all birds are by definition bipedal, but easily the worst are the
> aquatic ones. Walk like a duck? Charlie Chaplin based his comedy
> routine on walking like a penguin, and loons and grebes are almost
> incapable of walking at all.
It does appear to be that way, doesn't it? Aquatic birds are not
well equiped for fast, coordinated terrestrial locomotion.
The marine/aquatic environment appears to have caused pelvic and pedal
morphology changes that do not favor sprinters.
If I were a bettin' man (and I'm not), I would bet that the
penguin family's terrestrial ancestors were much better adapted to
getting around on land than are penguins. Don't know why...just
a hunch... <grin>
<pb>
|