Wing Design and the Origin of Bats

Pirlot, Paul

doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-8851-7_13

Cited by 10 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the flight‐first hypothesis the arboreal nocturnal insectivorous mammal is suggested to have first evolved gliding as a progression from leaping between branches of the trees (Smith, 1977; Norberg, 1985b, 1986a; Rayner, 1986; Arita & Fenton, 1997; Simmons & Geisler, 1998). An alternative model in which the pre‐bat moved directly from perching to hovering flight (Jepsen, 1970; Pirlot, 1977) is not widely accepted, because hovering flight is the most energetically expensive mode of flying (Clark, 1977; Rayner, 1986; Winter, 1998; Winter et al , 1998). In contrast, gliding is energetically much cheaper (Baudinette & Schmidt Nielsen, 1974).…”

Section: Hypothesis Two: Flight Firstmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of flight and echolocation in bats: another leap in the dark

Speakman

2001

Mammal Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The earliest known complete bats, from the Eocene (49–53 Mya), were already capable of flapping flight and echolocation. In the absence of direct fossil evidence there have been many speculative scenarios advanced to explain the evolution of these behaviours and their distributions in extant bats. Theories assuming chiropteran monophyly have generally presumed the ancestral pre‐bat was nocturnal, arboreal and insectivorous. Following this assumption hypotheses can be divided into the echolocation first, flight first and tandem development hypotheses, all of which assume that flight evolved only once in the lineage. In contrast, the chiropteran diphyly hypothesis suggests that flight evolved twice. Evidence supporting and refuting the different hypotheses are reviewed. It is concluded that there are significant problems attached to all the current models. A novel hypothesis is advanced, which starts from the assumption that bats are monophyletic and the ancestral pre‐bat was arboreal, but diurnal and frugivorous. After the evolution of flight it is suggested that these animals were driven into the nocturnal niche by the evolution of raptorial birds, and different groups evolved either specialised nocturnal vision (megachiropterans) or echolocation (microchiropterans). A block on sensory modality transfer has retained this distribution of perceptual capabilities ever since, despite some Megachiroptera evolving rudimentary echolocation, and the dietary convergence of some Microchiroptera with the Megachiroptera. The new hypothesis overcomes many of the problems identified in previous treatments.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis Two: Flight Firstmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of flight and echolocation in bats: another leap in the dark

Speakman

2001

Mammal Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 'fluttering' model proposes that flight began with animals beating their wings erratically, and finding that useful aerodynamic forces could be generated; flight would thus have evolved rapidly, almost by saltation. The fluttering scenario has been advanced most commonly for bats Uepsen, 1970;Pirlot, 1977;Caple et al, 1983). The main pressure for this model has come from unfounded objections to the gliding model, often arising from misunderstanding of flapping flight mechanics (e.g.…”

Section: Fluttering Prolo-jappersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of vertebrate flight

Rayner

1988

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flight-defined as the ability to produce useful aerodynamic forces by flapping the wings-is one of the most striking adaptations in vertebrates. Its origin has been surrounded by considerable controversy, due in part to terminological inconsistencies, in part to phylogenetic uncertainty over the sister groups and relationships of birds, bats and pterosaurs, and in part to disagreement over the interpretation of the available fossil evidence and over the relative importance of morphological, mechanical and ecological specializations. Study of the correlation between functional morphology and mechanics in contemporary birds and bats, and in particular of the aerodynamics of flapping wings, clarifies the mechanical changes needed in the course of the evolution of flight. This strongly favours a gliding origin of tetrapod flight, and on mechanical and ecological grounds the alternative cursorial and fluttering hypotheses (neither of which is at present well-defined) may be discounted. The argumrnt is particularly strong in bats, but weaker in birds owing to apparent inconsistencies with the fossil evidence. However, study of the fossils of the Jurassic theropod dinosaur Archaeopteryx, the sister-group of the stem-group proto-birds, supports this view. Its morphology indicates adaptation for flapping flight at the moderately high speeds which would be associated with gliding, but not for the slow speeds which would be required for incipient flight in a running cursor, where the wingbeat is aerodynamically and kinematically considerably more complex. Slow flight in birds and bats is a more derived condition, and vertebrate flapping flight apparently evolved through a gliding stage.

show abstract

“…However, these tracing procedures have recently been criticized as being too time consuming, potentially damaging to museum specimens, and potentially inaccurate for museum specimens whose wings have not been fixed in an extended position (Smith & Starrett, 1979;Blood & McFarlane, 1988). Procedures initially proposed as being simpler, albeit less accurate (Pirlot, 1977) alternatives to the tracing procedure, may not be subject to the problems affecting the latter when fluid-preserved specimens are involved. These 'estimation procedures' (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These 'estimation procedures' (e.g. Findley et al, 1972;Pirlot, 1977;Smith & Starrett, 1979;Aldridge, 1988;Blood & McFarlane, 1988) seek to estimate wing area from a few easily obtainable linear measurements (e.g. forearm length, wingspan and lengths of digits 111, IV and V) by assuming it to be a combination of simple geometric figures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of this study was two-fold: first, to quantify the effects of fixation and preservation on the assessment of various wing variables in chiropteran specimens (morphometric portion); and secondly, to assess the accuracy of four representative estimation procedures (Pirlot, 1977;Smith & Starrett, 1979;Aldridge, 1988;Blood & McFarlane, 1988) on the different specimen types (estimation portion). To accomplish both objectives, individuals of a single species of bat, the little brown bat (Myotis Zucifugus), were fixed and then stored in various preservatives and in various wing positions, according to standard museum techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of preservation on wing morphometry of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)

Bininda‐Emonds

Russell

1993

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of formalin fixation and subsequent alcohol preservation on various morphometric variables and their derivatives (lifting surface area, wingspan, mass, aspect ratio, wing loading and minimum power speed) and on the results of procedures that estimate lifting surface area of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) are identified and quantified. Statisitical analysis demonstrates that the values of all of the examined morphometric variables depends upon the specimen type from which they are obtained (live animal; freshly killed specimen; immediately following formalin fixation; or after 36 weeks in alcohol). Over the short term, the choice of preservation fluid is ot important with respect to determination of the six variables studied. The fixation positin of the wing is an important factor in the determination of all variables except mass. Although originally suggested for study skins and not fluid‐preserved specimens, ‘intermediate’ and ‘extended’ wing positions are demonstrably better than the conventional ‘compressed’ position. The estimation procedures of both Pirlot (1977) and Blood & McFarlane (1988) significantly underestimate analogous lifting surface areas determinedby tracing live bats. Smith & Starrett's (1979) procedure was found to yield accurate estimates occasionally: on live animals and preserved specimens with wings fixed in the extended position. Aldridge's (1988) method also yields accurate estimates of lifting surface area, but is limited to those museum specimens where the live or freshly‐killed mass is known. Such conclusions permit recommendation of procedures that minimize changes arising through the fixation and preservation process in fluid‐preserved museum specimens when compared to the live animal.

show abstract

Wing Design and the Origin of Bats

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

The evolution of flight and echolocation in bats: another leap in the dark

The evolution of flight and echolocation in bats: another leap in the dark

The evolution of vertebrate flight

Effects of preservation on wing morphometry of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About