"Yi qi was the size of a pigeon - and predates modern birds"
If it predates modern birds it would not be able to predate a modern bird. In other news, fruit flies like a banana.
BATWINGED DINO-PIGEON causes FLAP in bone-boffinry circles
Chinese dinoboffins have announced the discovery of one of the oddest creatures that may have ever attempted flight. The critter lived during the Jurassic Period, about 160 million years ago, 10 million years before the appearance of the first bird. The pigeon-sized reptile, named Yi qi ("E-chee") or Strange Wing in Mandarin, …
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 12:19 GMT Little Mouse
"To fly actively, an animal must be able to execute a flight stroke that can generate a vortex wake that propels it forward," he said, adding that "no evidence presented so far suggest that Yi qi had this ability."
Did the Chinese scientists conclude that it flew actively, or just that it had wings? Maybe gliding was more its thing?
-
-
Friday 1st May 2015 03:01 GMT Martin Budden
Re: Gliding?
Dear Mage, I'd like to correct you if I may.
Flying squirrels are actual squirrels, not marsupials.
Gliding possums are marsupials but not flying squirrels - please don't get them confused.
While it is true that marsupials* (including gliding possums) don't have a placenta, they are born with a yolk sac scar which is a belly button. Due to the very young age at birth the scar fades away as the animal grows, but theoretically the scar (belly button) does still exist.
*Monotremes are marsupials which lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young. The only two monotreme species are platypus and echidna. Even monotremes have a yolk sac scar (belly button).
-
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 12:45 GMT tony72
Petrosaurs?
"Its bat-like wings are made of membranous skin, rather than feathers, just like the wings of the extinct flying reptiles known as petrosaurs, of which it is a contemporary but not a relative."
What are petrosaurs? Gasoline-guzzling flying dinosaurs if I had to guess; sounds scary.
Pterosaurs, on the other hand...
[Yes, I could have used the corrections button, but where's the fun in that?]
-
Friday 1st May 2015 03:07 GMT Martin Budden
Re: Petrosaurs?
[Yes, I could have used the corrections button, but where's the fun in that?]
I've used the corrections button several times, but I never get any reply or acknowledgement. I don't think I'll bother any more. I understand that the Reg journos are keen to knock off and go to the pub as soon as possible (which is fine by me) but if I've gone to the effort to send a correction then surely it's not too much to ask for a very short acknowledgement that it has been received and noted - even "ta" will do.
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 12:54 GMT Alister
Nature editor Henry Gee, a palaeontologist and evolutionary biologist, said a feathered dinosaur with a wing membrane "is not something anyone would ever have expected to find."
As a complete lay-person, I wonder why that's the case.
If it's accepted that there is an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds, then to me, there must have been a point in the evolutionary process where you would have pre-bird lizards with some type of wing, or post-lizard birds with wings, and therefore the existence of fossils of these must have been expected to exist, even if no-one had yet found one?
The fact that there are no obvious signs of feathers on the wing doesn't mean it's much different anatomically to present day birds - feathers on flight surfaces were perhaps a later refinement.
My roast chicken this weekend had a wing membrane without feathers...
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 13:20 GMT Sir Sham Cad
Re: I wonder why that's the case
I'm no paleontologist but I think it's because every example of a feathered dinosaur with wings that we've found have been feathered wings and, until now, only the pterosaurs have been known to have a membrane.
It does seem obvious to me, though. Feathers were around before feathered wings evolved so if a feathered animal around that time was evolving to fly it really only had one option for limb form.
Still, if it is a genuine find (always a worry when there's only one of them) it's a cracker!
-
-
Thursday 30th April 2015 15:25 GMT Sir Sham Cad
Re: most of the time, they barely have a tenth of one.
Yes, but with luck they find more identifiably the same remains in another location with maybe a couple of additional bones to add to the jigsaw puzzle so there's evidence that there wasn't just one of these things which, in the wake of the "Archeoraptor" hoax, would make it a strong candidate for a healthy dose of scepticism.
I'm quite happy that they may not have much of a complete skeleton. Less so that what they have got has only been unearthed in one location. That said, I hope they do find many more because dino-boffinry is cool. Bloody hard but cool.
-
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
