Early birds had dino-feet: study

So, what do we think? Does this answer the "from-the-ground-up" or "from-the-trees-down" question of how bird flight evolved?

Could you elaborate, please? The article quite clearly describes the feet on this specimen as being suited for running on the ground, not perching in trees - is this an inaccurate statement?

I disagree.The "trees down" hypothesis postulates that birds evolved from tree-dwelling dinosaurs, who initially used feathers for gliding in a similar way to flying squirrels today; if this was the case we should expect to see features adapted to tree dwelling (the feet in particular) in basal birds. This isn't the case.

Not so, I'm assuming it was adapted to living in trees. The article states that the feet were adapted to "running on the ground"; I asked you whether this was correct because I've not studied the fossils and don't really have the technical knowledge to determine either way anyhow. While we need not expect the features to be exactly those of perching birds, we should expect them to be those of a tree dweller not a ground runner (squirrels certainly do not have feet like those of dedicated ground dwellers such as deer, hogs or even capyburra). The "Trees Down" hypothesis does require that ancestoral "pre-birds" were tree dwellers, and this should leave us with feet adapted to tree dwelling.The article may be overstating it's case; I don't know. But if it what it says is correct then I think this counts as a compelling reason for supporting ground-up. Although it is, of course, possible that the first birds were tree dwelling and Archaeopteryx then re-adapted for running on the ground.

Because that's what the "tree's down" hypothesis postulates: that bird evolved from tree dwelling creatures.