Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1971 talk.origins:4849
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!sabol
From: sabol@Apple.COM (Bryan Sabol)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins
Subject: Re: The birds and the beaks
Keywords: evolution, birds, beaks
Message-ID: <28426@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 5 Apr 89 17:05:11 GMT
References: <404@censor.UUCP> <27216@apple.Apple.COM> <464@corpane.UUCP> <28330@apple.Apple.COM> <471@censor.UUCP>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 21

In article <471@censor.UUCP> jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) writes:
	>Sure. I'll try to make it clearer.
>- bats eat soft stuff therefore bats can get away with small sharp teeth,
    >and small lightweight jaws
>- if bats had to eat something that required a heavier jaw they'd either
    >a) become flightless or b) develop beaks (or c) starve).
>
>- archeopteryx ate soft stuff (insects & small animals). It had small
    >sharp teeth.
>- ALL modern birds have beaks
>
>- therefore I conclude (and I know it's tenuous) that some near descendants
>of archeopteryx ate something that needed a strong jaw (my guess "nuts").
>They developed beaks. They then were successful enough to overwhelm all
>the (left-over) toothed birds.

	Okay, I'll go along with that;  it seems more plausible than
connecting the necessity of beak expressly to wing.

bryan sabol
ousted reedie-at-large