• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nova-"The Four-Winged Dinosaur"

Bikewer

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
13,242
Location
St. Louis, Mo.
Nice Nova episode airing tonight on speculations about the evolution of flight, concerning the "four-winged" microraptor found fairly recently in China.

Nice interplay (and argument) between the competing schools of thought.
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/fossils.html

Missed the article, but from what I can tell, the animal did not have 2 sets of wings, but a feathered set of hind limbs.
When I saw 'four-winged dinosaur,' I read that as two sets of wings and one set of legs. A six limbed dinosaur/bird would have been a major deviation from the evolutionary record. Specialized hind legs however, is possible, even expected.
Nifty fossils though.

MrQhuest
 
Yes, "four wings" isn't accurate. I saw the show last night, and it concluded that these creatures didn't actually fly, but were gliders since they lacked the shoulder configuration to flap their wings. Feathers on their legs helped them to glide farther, and by lowering their legs, the feathers acted as a brake to slow their speed before landing. Today's birds do that by flapping their wings differently so there's no need for feathers on their legs.

If the creature was just a glider, though, it makes you wonder how it got up into a tree in the first place.
 
Wow, great fossils. I hope to catch this Nova re-run.

Lord knows we found another "gap" for the creationists/ID'ers to exploit ...

Charlie (gaps, like David Letterman's teeth) Monoxide
 
Nice interplay (and argument) between the competing schools of thought.

I'm glad they depicted the controversy, but I was disappointed that the Kansas group's hypothesis and methodology was so weak. Martin et al looked a little buffoonish to me. I almost got the impression that their views were aired primarily to have a controversy to make the show a bit more dramatic, or something. I found a few of Martin's claims puzzling, and had some good answers from some paleo specialists commenting on my blog.

Despite this disappointment - which amounts to "forget these Kansas people, stick with China and AMNH" - I thought the documentary was really good. Nova rarely disappoints.

Tumblehome said:
If the creature was just a glider, though, it makes you wonder how it got up into a tree in the first place.

Uh - really? How do non-flying animals get up into trees these days?
 
Uh - really? How do non-flying animals get up into trees these days?


Non-flying animals have four feet with claws to help them climb trees. It seems to me that it would be more difficult for a two-legged bird to climb a tree, keeping in mind that this is much bigger than a nut hatch, and has long feathers on its legs that might hinder its climbing ability.

The Nova doc showed a bird going up a steep incline by half-running, half-flapping its wings, but the microraptor supposedly couldn't flap its wings. Is it plausible that it just jumped onto a tree trunk and walked up on its two legs?
 
Well, for one thing, this is a fossil, so I presume that in the long run its locomotion wasn't ideal for its environment, else we'd have them dive bombing us today. This is a transitional animal, not a solid niche dweller, yet.

Secondly, squirrels (even flying squirrels) have no problem even with the tail and the skin flaps hanging between the legs. All an animal of that size needs to climb vertically is claws (which this indisputably had) and a beak to assist (with teeth, no less), and trees (or reasonable facsimiles) with loose "bark". Bats climb things, albeit somewhat clumsily.

I imagine it would be a bear climbing backwards with the feathers, but squirrels don't do that either.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one thing, this is a fossil, so I presume that in the long run its locomotion wasn't ideal for its environment, else we'd have them dive bombing us today. This is a transitional animal, not a solid niche dweller, yet.

This is not consistent with Evolution. The organism must have had (even a small) competitive advantage in its habitat. Perhaps it was a specialist in eating something that other organisms either could not consume or could not access. Perhaps it lived in some isolated area with few competitors. Perhaps it climbed poorly, but managed to glide between trees in the canopy relatively well, making it more adept at evading predators than its competitors. The fact is that if an organism is less than competitive in all ways in its habitat, it dies off in the twinkling of an eye, geologically speaking.

Evolution doesn't seek goals, and has no patience for weakness in a "transitional form" while it waits for the organism to evolve into something splendid.
 
Last edited:
Here's my latest pondering the Universe question and answer seeling, for what it's worth.

It's become clear birds evolved from dinos. So, were there multiple ancestral lines or was there a single 'adam and eve' flock of dinos that went on to be the bird branch of the tree of life?

So, I looked into it and found "only the neornithine birds persevered to continue the massive diversification that began in the Cretaceous period".

So, the next question I had was similar. How many lines of neornithine birds were there?

Current thought was that there were 3 lines of dinos with bird features.

From the Tree of Life web project

Ornithischia - Bird-hipped plant-eating dinosaurs
Sauropodomorpha - Long-necked plant-eating dinosaurs

Both those lines died out.

The Theropoda - (Bipedal predatory dinosaurs) evolved into birds.

From Theropoda came Coelurosauria (tyrannosaurs, Oviraptor, Velociraptor, birds, and relatives) and the other branches became extinct.

next came the following branches
* Ornitholestes
* Compsognathidae
* Alvarezsauridae
* Ornithomimidae (ostrich-like dinosaurs)
* Therizinosauridae
* Tyrannosauroidea
* Maniraptora
o Oviraptorosauria
o Dromaeosauridae (Velociraptor and relatives)
o Troodontidae
o Aves (birds)

Aves then became
* Archaeopteryx
* Confuciusornithidae
* Enantiornithes
* Euornithes (true birds)
o Patagopteryx
o Hesperornithiformes
o Ichthyornithiformes
o Neornithes (modern birds)

And the neornithes branched into 3 lines of birds we have today.

Then I found my way to EvoWiki and The Neornithine 'Big Bang' page.
In light of the evaluation offered within this essay, the author submits a revised scenario to that previously advanced in Avian Phylogeny and Origins.

Originating sometime in the latest Cretaceous, within the Campanian/Maastrichtian interval, the basal neornithines, perhaps derived from forms similar to Apatornis celer and represented by the graculavids and other “transitional shorebirds,” experienced a very modest adaptive radiation within a severely restricted niche, namely, the near-shore environment. The decline of the Hesperornithiformes and Ichthyornithiformes during the later Cretaceous may have facilitated this modest diversification of the “transitional shorebird” lineage, or alternatively, may have been caused by it.

With the events at the KT Boundary (whatever those were), the dominant aviary of the Mesozoic, represented by the spectacularly diverse Enantiornithes and the scattered lineages of archaic ornithurines, were extinguished, leaving the incipient neornithine dynasty to undergo an explosive primary adaptive radiation. Within a period of some ten million years, the base of the neornithine lineage diversified so extensively that almost all extant orders were present by the Lower Eocene, as witnessed by the avifauna of such deposits as the London Clays and Green River Formation of Wyoming. With such a rapid branching of clades from their respective nodes, the ordinal relationships of Neornithes are largely unknowable, and thus we have a m�lange of taxa of uncertain affinity.

The base of Neornithes is something of a hub and spokes, with unresolved branching patterns for multiple orders in what is a thoroughly unpleasant poltyomy.

So I guess we don't yet know how many variations of these Neornithes survived the KT Boundary event. But I think this sounds like there was probably one line of descent that had already began branching into new species at the time of the KT event which survived the devastation. Sort of like having most domestic dogs surviving something that wiped out all the wild canine species and subsequently evolving.

And at least now I have a better idea where Archaeopteryx fits into the dino picture.

And it made it easier to understand what they were talking about on the NOVA program which is summarized on this page explaining the controversies about which bird features evolved when.

Journey through time, from birds to dinosaurs
The evolution of the characters that make flight possible - feathers, lightweight bones and joints that could articulate a flapping motion and provide control during flight, probably all came about for different reasons. Once the ability to fly had evolved however, refinements in the efficiency of flight could be further evolved.


BTW, the Microraptor either has a different scientific name or it isn't listed in the Tree of Life Project yet.
 
EvoWiki: Microraptor has the scientific names but those are not on the TOL web project either.

But if you want to get more scientific than my Universe ponderings, EvoWiki has this interesting tidbit.
Dromaeosauridae
Dromaeosauridae (sensu Ostrom 1990) is an extinct family of intelligent dinosaurs known as the raptors. The Dromaeosauridae span the cretaceous period.

Common ancestor of Deinonychus + Velociraptor, and all descendant taxa.

Autapomorphies of Dromaeosauridae as outlined by Ostrom in 1990 are no longer reliable in light of new fossil evidence. In particular, the semilunate carpal and sternocostal articulations are probably symplesiomorphic of Paraves.

JGK
 
Last edited:
Um, you've never seen a woodpecker or a nuthatch or any number of other birds climb up, down, and sideways on vertical trees?

Birds don't work in horizontal/vertical frameworks. They work in all three dimensions, far more advanced than humans can fathom.

When you can just go...up, up and away, whenever you want to, your perspective tends to change dramatically.
 
???Acronym Definition
NVM National Volcanic Monument
NVM Network Virtual Machine
NVM Network Virtual Memory
NVM Never Mind
NVM Non-Volatile Memory
NVM Nonvolatile Matter

I'm going to guess, nevermind. :)
 
Last edited:
I've been going through all my old dinosaur notes and books from my childhood and early teens (1985-92 or thereabouts). I've been catching up over the last month or so on the last ten years I all but missed, so have recently covered much the same ground as you skeptigirl. I picked up a neat little (coffee table) book by Angela Milner called "Dinobirds" that spells it out with nice piccies for slow people like me. :)

It's so cool to see what's been learned in the meantime. Especially all the mentions of a dinosaur-bird link as just a hypothesis, when now, only a fringe of disbelievers (borderline denialists) challenge it.
 
This is not consistent with Evolution. The organism must have had (even a small) competitive advantage in its habitat. Perhaps it was a specialist in eating something that other organisms either could not consume or could not access. Perhaps it lived in some isolated area with few competitors. Perhaps it climbed poorly, but managed to glide between trees in the canopy relatively well, making it more adept at evading predators than its competitors. The fact is that if an organism is less than competitive in all ways in its habitat, it dies off in the twinkling of an eye, geologically speaking.

Evolution doesn't seek goals, and has no patience for weakness in a "transitional form" while it waits for the organism to evolve into something splendid.

You're absolutely right, but while evolution may not seek to meet a goal, it does indeed find them anyway. When the environment is in stress and changing, evolution follows willy-nilly, always imperfect, trying this and that, always somewhere behind the curve. When the environment becomes stable, evolution causes its charges to radiate into all the niches, weed out genetic weaknesses with greater strictness and become a stable population. This fact is very much apparent to those who do statistical analysis on fossil finds, as some species are very well represented because of large populations and radiation into niches, while those more transitional are scarcer as well.
 
I imagine it would be a bear climbing backwards with the feathers

I first read this and tried to imagine one of our furry ursine friends in a bird suit ascending a tree in reversed posture. I haven't laughed that hard in a while. Thank you. </derail>
 
Birds don't work in horizontal/vertical frameworks. They work in all three dimensions, far more advanced than humans can fathom.

When you can just go...up, up and away, whenever you want to, your perspective tends to change dramatically.

How many ways can a tree be climbed? Up, down and sideways on a vertical tree seems to sum it up. Am I missing something?
 
How many ways can a tree be climbed? Up, down and sideways on a vertical tree seems to sum it up. Am I missing something?

That's the bottom of the trunk. Ever been high up in a tree? That will give you a very good idea of what three-dimensional is!
 

Back
Top Bottom