Ancient Reptile Had Wings Like a Fighter Jet

anthemaniac writes "A reptile that lived 225 million years ago had triangular-shaped wings like the delta-wings of some jets. At least that's what a new computer model suggests. Researcher have generated several possible shapes for the wings of Sharovipteryx mirabili before, so this is just the latest guess (based on one fossil). Last fall NatGeo reported that the first biplane configuration was on a dinosaur. Maybe airplane designers should delve into the fossil record a little more."

Comments

They have this all wrong.

[LiquidCoooled]

We need to stop looking at ancient fossils, we need to go and ask the only living relative of this creature just what they were for and how they looked.

This reptile was clearly the ancestor of MC Hammer.

Back in reality now (after a cold shower) some Bats have practically identical skin flaps between their legs even nowadays.

As for diving into the fossil records, we should be trying to model our aircraft on living birds and bats and insects, at least then we don't need a computer to guess how it should work. I would rather put my trust into something when there are plenty of study models to base a design from, not a single sample guestimate.

We can already soar like an eagle perhaps we need the manoeuvrability of a bat for urban airports?

Re:fossil

[MrFebtober]

Fossils sometimes leave more than just bone. In this case, there must have been impressions in the fossil which indicated that the animal had some sort of membrane. It's also possible to tell when some animals have taken measures to lighten their bodies for flight. they have thinner, sometimes hollow bones and some organs reduce in size, anything to reduce weight. Also, in this case the long thin rear legs kind of hint that they were not just for terrestrial use.

It's possible.

[jd]

Some such displays are to get attention by being more outrageous. Others are an indication of physical health or adequate nutrition. A stunted wing might well have indicated that an animal was in trouble, and oversized wings might well have been much more attention-grabbing. With only a single fossil to go by, it's hard to tell anything, but I think you might very well be right, if this is a representative example.

(It could equally well have been a freak one-off mutation that was wholly incapable of propogating further. Given the low probability of fossilization that would seem unlikely, but given the very high number of fossil collectors, if such an animal did fossilize, it would likely be found sooner or later.)

Re:Hm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no, because if it was a tooth, for example, *alot* can be determined from that "one bone". Same for many other individual bones, though most are not as diagnostic as teeth.

Then there's the fact that this specimen consists of a pretty complete skeleton with preservation of soft tissues, so your question kind of misses the point. This isn't "one bone".

"When mainstream scientists can't even explain exactly how these bones lasted as long as they think they did?"

Check out the general references on Wikipedia's taphonomy page. The book that is most relevant is the one on vertebrate taphonomy. You might also want to look up the term lagerstatten (damn, how do you make an aumlaut in here? It doesn't take the usual HTML codes. There should be an umlaut over the second "a"). The Karatau locality in Kyrgyzstan is pretty special because of the soft tissue impressions (i.e. a conservat-Lagerstatten). While there are plenty of questions, preservation isn't as problematic as you imply.

Re:Science-Creationism parser

[nephridium]

You mean "Noahs Aircraft Carrier" (which was itself merely the CV-1 "Gilgamesh" dug out of mothballs with a new set of flags :)

I don't think so. The boat used in the Gilgamesh epos was 'as wide as it was long' and it only needed enough space for the 'essential' seeds so Utnapishtim could start anew after the flood. Noah's boat was version 2.0 based on a rectangular shape so steering it somewhere was definitely easier. It also was built to withstand a greater flood and according to creationists it was big enough to house all creatures including dinosaurs (which died out later) and enough rations of food for more than 7 months(!). Basically the bible's version is an exaggerated and updated version.

The people allowed on the arch were the ancestors of the eastern Europeans et al (Japhet), Egyptians/Canaanites et al (Ham) and Arabs/Hebrews et al (Shem). Thus all the other humans nowadays native Americans, Chinese, Aboriginees etc. are either from another 'humanoid' flock or they could swim very very well ;)

Interestingly the term 'caucasian' traces its origin to this biblical story: Japhet's children are said to have lived in the Caucasus region.