Could it take off from water?? Otherwise, it would seem like a Darwinian dead-end. Then again, it is extinct...
'Biggest bird ever': 21-foot ripsaw-beaked flying horror
Boffins have identified the fossil remnants of a vast creature that had a jagged-edged ripper beak, and appears to have had the largest wingspan of any bird ever. Artist's impression of world's largest flying bird, Pelagornis sandersi Artist's impression of world's largest flying bird, Pelagornis sandersi. Credit: Liz …
COMMENTS
-
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 07:48 GMT 7teven 4ect
Gliding
Another article pointed out that for each 1m drop, the bird could glide 22m
Waves go up and down, the bird just has to sit on the water, wait for a 1m wave to lift it, then glide up to 22m to catch a fish on the surface, then wait for a wave to lift it for the next attack.
Sat on a wave, the bird may have looked like a wave, almost invisible to fish.
Just because it's big, doesn't mean it had to fly or glide large distances.
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 11:25 GMT D@v3
take off
I figure it spent a loooong time airborne, much like an albatross, and when on occasion it did need to take off, it would be able to throw itself off a nearby cliff face (probably the one it briefly landed on) spread it's wings, catch a draft and off it goes.
I am, of course, no ornithologist.
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 12:42 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: take off
I'm no orthinologist either. More of a wird-botcher...*
But cliffs is what I'd assumed as well. It's not likely to be an evolutionary success to rely on a sufficient gust of wind being available for take-off, just as the local predator turns up for lunch. Although many sea-birds can lighten the load for emergency take-offs by vomiting their stomach contents all over their attacker.
Perhaps symbiosis is the answer? Maybe there was an aircraft carrier dinosaur, on which these things could land? We just haven't found the fossil yet.
Then again, they did die out "under mysterious circumstances". So maybe it was crap take-off abilities and natural selection. But my carriersaur theory is still in it with a chance! Perhaps the things just evolved away their catapults, and forgot to upgrade the birds at the same time?
*With thanks to the late, great, Humphrey Lyttelton.
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 20:06 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: take off
"Then again, they did die out "under mysterious circumstances". So maybe it was crap take-off abilities and natural selection."
On the other hand, the article states "The huge seabirds were found all over the world for tens of millions of years" which suggests that he people who know about this stuff believe these birds were around for waaaaay longer than human beings have been so far. :-)
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 21:53 GMT Queasy Rider
Re: take off
I don't think the bulk of their diet was found up on cliffs, so they still probably had to take off occasionally from the water. The only way I see around this is to only feed in waters around cliff bases, then somehow climb the cliff face till they are high enough to launch into a suitable updraft.
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 02:10 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: take off
I don't think you'd need cliffs to jump off as a shallow hill or sand dune was probably adequate. If it was an expert glider it wouldn't need much forward velocity to get aloft. Given an onshore breeze as the air over the sand heats and rises it may be a gently sloping beech was enough so the bird could literally stand tall and fall forward onto its wings with a day's soaring ahead of it.
Given its size it probably wouldn't have much competition from its own kind so it may not have had to make long distance voyages over open ocean. It may have be enough to make a living in the littoral zone given it could likely cover the distance between Jacksonville, NC and Jacksonville, FL in a day. The added benefit besides a short swim to a gentle slope would be the increased probability of running into a potential mate and the downside obviously running into an adversary (assuming they were territorial).
All in all, while it might have been the coolest thing since the iced mocha venti carmel caffe macchiato I'm kind of glad they are gone. Not because I'd be worried they'd swoop me away as I'm fairly certain I'd outweigh most if not all of them but I'd never hear the end of it should something happen to Mrs. Ito's kitteh. Besides, if they hadn't vanished a long time ago they would certainly have gone the way of the dodo because humans aren't kind to potentially tasty meals that can't out-breed us.
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 11:45 GMT Scroticus Canis
The BBC reckons it's the largest bird ever....
Strangely similar article on the BBC site earlier today but their "science" hackette said this was the largest bird ever (maybe they have corrected such a glaring error by now). At least this version got the "largest wingspan" bit right. Doubtful if this was the heaviest bird to take to the air though.
If bird bones are so "paper thin" (yes they are lighter in construction than some) why does a smack around the head with an ostrich femur hurt so much?
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Thursday 10th July 2014 19:32 GMT Gary Bickford
Re: Just imagine
In ancient times there was a community known as the Goodnu's. As all communities did in these times the Goodnu's lived right on the river bank for trading, transportation and sustenance. Water was almighty and worshipped as a God. One day there was a tremendous hurricane far out in the ocean. It's ferocity blew a large flock of "Foo" birds way off course sending them inland many hundreds of miles and in the vicinity of the Goodnu's community. The Goodnu people had never seen a "Foo" bird and were quite curious as to it's sudden and obviously evil presence. The "Foo" bird, as we all know, is a very ugly, evil-looking bird. This caused the Goodnu people to become very uneasy believing they did something wrong to God and that this bird should be avoided. One day a "Foo" bird flew overhead and screeched: "Foo, Foo" and shit on a Goodnu's head. The man ran screaming into the river believing the Holy powers of the river would cleanse him of this evil turd and its consequences. As soon as the man washed this unholy turd from his ear canal he suddenly keeled over and died. The Goodnu's were now convinced of the "Foo" bird's evilness. The next day a woman was outside and heard: "Foo, Foo". Before she could react the "Foo" bird dropped a bomb landing a syrupy turd across her face. Shocked and panicked she ran into the river furiously washing her face of this sloppy stew. The village watched in horror as this woman also died once cleansed of the runny turd. The very next day a village wiseman heard those famous words: "Foo, Foo". He like others had witnessed the terrible deaths of two of his villages' people in the last two days. He too was struck right in the forehead by the "Foo" birds accurately guided turd missile. His first reaction was confusion and he sprinted towards the river. However, he stopped short and thought of his obvious demise should he cleanse the turd wafer from his forehead. He did not cleanse the poo pile from his forehead and lived. So the wiseman went to the other people of the village, gathered them around and stated to them: "There is an obvious lesson here my good people. The moral of this story is: 'If the Foo shits, wear it.'".
- this version from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbowman/birds/humor/foo_bird.html
-
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 12:38 GMT Rogue Jedi
Largest ever flying bird?
why do we frequently hear of the largest ever or fastest ever, just because we know of nothing larger does not mean it does not has not and will never exist.
I would much rather people use terminology like "largest discovered to date", "possibly the largest ever" or "fastest built to date" and not potentially look like an idiot in 6 months if a larger creature is discovered or a faster vehicle is created.
e.g. many dinosaurs have been declared the largest ever, only to have a specimen from a larger species discovered a few years later.
Is the headline value really worth the potential of looking like an idiot in the near future?
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 14:02 GMT John Gamble
Terror Bird
Hey there, headline writers, there's only room for one Terror Bird in these parts. Come up with a different adjective, or we'll peck you to death.
-
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 15:00 GMT John Gamble
Re: Terror Bird
It looks like they do have colloquial names ("bony-toothed birds", "false-toothed birds", etc.), but I think that's boring. How about using another word from the headline, and call them "Dragon Birds"?
I expect a letter-writing campaign to begin immediately.
-
-
-
Tuesday 8th July 2014 15:28 GMT Stevie
Bah!
Er ... the Ekranoplans had umptytump engines to push them through the air, and were anything but gliders.
How did this thing survive grabbing stuff from the water and the resultant loss of airspeed if it couldn't climb under power ffs?
Perhaps swallows gripped it by the oversized feathers and dragged it back into the air in the same way they help coconuts migrate?
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 08:26 GMT Denarius
Re: Bah!
Ekronoplane aka Caspian Sea Monster had about 10 turbofans AFAIRC. Like a speedboat lots of power to get off water into wing in ground effect. Once in ground effect most engines could be shut down or back to flight idle. Many birds use dynamic soaring, especially seabirds. The latest glider designs are capable of this if the pilots can handle rapidly changing G loads. Would be probable that a large bird with those soaring wings would be able to use dynamic soaring on large ocean swells like albatrosses, even if this meant it restricted possible landing and breeding sites. A similar argument can be made for the larger pterosaurs. Not able to flap, but brilliant soaring animals. Smaller birds do dynamic soaring. eg swallows in right conditions. Look for birds diving across wind, turning into wind and climbing, then going cross wind again. It is using the increasing wind speed as it rises to maintain airspeed, thus gaining potential energy.
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 14:35 GMT Stevie
Re: Bah!
Agree, Denarius, but:
a) There is more than one design of Ekranoplan. (Okay, nit-pick).
2) How well does a soaring wing work in ground effect?
#) How well does it work when the drag of a "trawl-kill" is factored in?
%) How well does it work when the sea is robbing the air of thermals?
I remain puzzled by how this thing could be a sea predator without flapping to accelerate after capturing prey.
-
Thursday 10th July 2014 05:16 GMT Denarius
Re: Bah!
@Stevie 1) You mean WIG aka Wing in Ground effect. Lots of designs and some even flew. All based on Dr Messerschmidts work around WW2. Known long before that. Used on first powered flight around world to cross oceans as reduced drag cut fuel consumption. The ground proximity reduces wingtip vortices, hence energy loss, similar to winglets.. Best WIG wing shape seems to be a reversed delta with point at back, with significant curve down.
2) Soaring aircraft work really well with GE as the effect is related to 1.5 times wingspan as a rule of thumb. Not to be used by gliders as safety research shows it is dangerous for unpowered flight as one tends to get strained thru fences, trees, whatever. Far safer to manage energy and stay flying at safe speed. OTOH, nice to extend the glide after final flare on hangar flights as one can be below stall and "float" along runway. Note, runway, not paddock..
4) Not sure what you mean. Assume additional drag from fresh lunch. Same thing as for eagles. A bit more drag so it depends on wind strength and swell height.
5) Dynamic soaring has nothing to do with thermals. It relies on a rapidly increasing wind speed as one gains altitude aka wind gradient. Due to ground friction the greatest wind speed change occurs within 50 feet of surface, which suits birds. Done it once in rotor. At 5000 feet ground crew could see the plane rocket up. Weird having nose pointing up steeply and have ASI stay just under Vmr for 30 seconds. Like a winch launch if you want the experience. So the steep wind gradient over open ocean could generate enough energy to support big birds in flight dragging a sizable snack.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 10th July 2014 00:41 GMT Martin Budden
Re: Perhaps we need to consider the Frigate Bird as an example?
You are right, frigate birds do soar over water for a long time, snatch fish from the surface while still in flight (they can't take off from the surface of the water), and also obtain food by stealing from other birds such as masked boobies. All in all a very good comparison.
Icon: this comment includes both "snatch" and "boobies".
-
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 07:35 GMT P. Lee
According to the abstract
Lift:drag ratios derived from the fossil design are near the upper end of all existing birds. That part sounds solidly scientific if you've got the design.
Unfortunately, if the design (apart from the lift:drag ratios) rules out flight because its above the theoretical maximum specs for flying birds (based on physics presumably), then it means either (a) we can't extrapolate animal characteristics from live species back into pre-history, which makes investigation of anything hazardous since we no longer have a solid starting point, or (b) the physics (air density?) was different, which again, means that the environment starting point (i.e. today) for extrapolation is not related to where we want to get to.
It also begs the question, was anything else completely different? Was there more helium in the air, resulting in all living creatures having squeaky, comedy voices? I think I'd like that: T-Rex sounding a bit like a kitten. Actually it has serious implications. Once you admit you don't know what physics were in effect, you're going to have some problems with lots of other theories which rely on guesswork based on modern things.
-
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 13:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: According to the abstract
Don't fret. I'm working on reversing the present culture. We'll make The Transition looking backwards. Who wants to see where we are headed anyway?
I reckon that large animals at that time must have been associated with more energy in the earth's system. Therefore higher windspeeds and therefore higher average wave heights and probably greater wavelengths, as in crest to crest. I guess with their speed they could probably catch a good one (surfing wave... as in Endless Summer, Jeffrey's bay style) mid-ocean and fly up and down, landing and launching at will. Until the wave hit a steep piece of land, as in cliff. The updraught gave it a dynamic flight to the top of an archeo-Cape Point for the night's kip.
Next morning they just jump off into the terminator breeze or latest gale sweeping past. Out to sea for a few hours and start another day catching waves.. and playing with the birds.
When the weather cooled down and air density decreased as oxygen, CO2 and water vapour levels dropped the fun stopped.... wipe out! Again and again.
Eventually only their smaller mutant drag-lift ratio runt offspring survived... what we call Albatross etc. per previous references.
Not an evolutionary dead-end at all. Just plain evolution!!! Found any archeo-albatrosses lately? :-)
-
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 13:35 GMT YetAnotherLocksmith
Re: According to the abstract
One factor people seem to forget is the oxygen percentage of the atmosphere was higher. Another is that the sun was brighter. So you had both more power available from the one-source-to-rule-them-all, & more chemical energy/power available more easily.
Hence bigger creatures that are not energetically viable today.
-
Thursday 10th July 2014 05:27 GMT Denarius
Re: According to the abstract
@ YetAnotherLocksmith
Oxygen I get. Big insects in Devonian indicate maybe guess 30%. But brighter sun ? Everything I have read suggests a cooler sun in far distant past, assuming we have an accurate model for sun like stars. ITIRC one of the current conundrums in astrophysics is why the Sun is so stable for so long.
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th July 2014 16:50 GMT Marshalltown
Anyone notice
... how common the "it shouldn't have been able to get off the ground ..." meme is in paleontology? Apparently the following dialog is very comon:
Paleontologist: I have a really large winged [brid/reptile/?]. How did it fly?
Physicist: What are the dimensions and mass?
Paleontologist: Wing span of 20 feet or more. Estimating from bone thickness, muscle attachment sites on the bones, and comparison to modern birds, about **** kg. The error in that figure will be pretty big.
Physicist: Tappity-tap, tap, tap. It couldn't.
It is pretty obvious that they got off the ground or off the water sufficiently well to appear in the fossil record for several million years. Pterodactyls and pteranodons did too, for that matter, and a few were even bigger. The problem couldn't possibly be the physics could it?