Cited by 46Paleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesComparative Animal Anatomy Studies

Foraging modes of Mesozoic birds and non-avian theropods

Open access
Glen, Christopher L., Bennett, Michael B.·2007·Current Biology

Abstract

The origin and early evolution of birds has been a major topic in evolutionary biology. In the 20th century, evolutionary scenarios posited either ground-based bird ancestors or tree-dwelling ancestors. This has since been recognised as a false dichotomy [1]. We suggest that part of the problem is the loose categorisation of many extant bird species as either ground or tree locomotors when considering hind-limb function [2-7]. In reality these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Many extant birds exhibit different degrees of ground- and tree-based behaviours. We thus propose they can be better placed on a spectrum - rather than a dichotomy - according to the extent of ground and/or tree foraging they exhibit. To test this system we analysed the toe claws of 249 species of Holocene birds, revealing that claw curvature increases as tree foraging becomes more predominant. Improved claw morphometrics allow more direct comparisons between extant and extinct birds in order to infer the behaviours of the latter. In contrast to previous studies [2-6], we find that claw curvatures of Mesozoic birds and closely related non-avian theropod dinosaurs, differ significantly from Holocene arboreal birds and more closely resemble those of Holocene 'ground-foraging' birds.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.026

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Microraptorines and scansoriopterigids do not have pedal claw curvature values within the range of extant climbing birds, but are more similar to ground-based foragers.

    “Microraptorines and scansoriopterigids do not have pedal claw curvature values within the range of extant climbing birds, but are more similar to ground-based foragers (e.g. pigeon) [18].”
  • Analyses of pedal claw curvature lack consensus, which may at least partially reflect differences in how curvature is quantified.

    “Analyses of pedal claw curvature lack consensus, which may at least partially reflect differences in how curvature is quantified.”

    From The ecology of Archaeopteryx (2026) · cites this paper as [67]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glen, C. L., & Bennett, M. B.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Glen, Christopher L.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
17
Issue
21
Pages
R911-R912
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005076636
Cited by
46
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2007-11-20)
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Comparative Animal Anatomy Studies
Keywords
Mesozoic birds, foraging behavior, arboreal locomotion, terrestrial locomotion, hindlimb function, dinosaur-bird transition
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Biological Evolution, Dinosaurs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review