Foraging modes of Mesozoic birds and non-avian theropods
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Assessing Arboreal Adaptations of Bird Antecedents: Testing the Ecological Setting of the Origin of the Avian Flight Stroke (2011) · cites this paper as [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
Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of <i>Archaeopteryx</i>
Feduccia, A. (1993) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.259.5096.790 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Birn-Jeffery, A. V., Miller, C. E., Naish, D., Rayfield, E. J., & Hone, D. W. E. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050555 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
The wings before the bird: an evaluation of flapping-based locomotory hypotheses in bird antecedents
Dececchi, T. A., Larsson, H. C. E., & Habib, M. B. (2016) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.2159 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Dececchi, T. A., & Larsson, H. C. E. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022292 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
“Glen and Bennet’s [18] data encompasses a broader range of bird ecomorphologies/behaviours and limit claw morphometrics to only the dorsal arch of the ungual rather than including the variable and rarely preserved ventral arch and joint of the toe pad (that were included by Feduccia [82], see [18] for a discussion).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSerrano, F. J., & Chiappe, L. M. (2017) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0182 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Pittman, M., Bell, P. R., Miller, C. V., Enriquez, N. J., Wang, X., Zheng, X., Tsang, L. R., Tse, Y. T., Landes, M., & Kaye, T. G. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-35039-1 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
O’Connor, J. K., & Clark, A. D. (2026) · Discover Ecology · doi:10.1007/s44396-026-00026-z
- Authors
- Glen, C. L., & Bennett, M. B.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Glen, Christopher L.
- ORCID
- Bennett, Michael B.
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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