Early birds had dino-feet: study

No, and the same to Mr Jack."From the trees down" does not require the evolution of a reversed hallux before wings.

When they're perfectly right, they're known as eggcorns.

No, that's not what I meant. My point was that Archaeopteryx is claimed to be a primitive form. So it is not at all surprising that it should still have features more appropriate to a land-dwelling dinosaur than to a bird. Therefore, the posession of such primitive features doesn't particularly argue for "ground up" rather than "trees down", any more than any other saurian feature does.

Hold up a bit.You're assuming a lineage which did all its adapting to living in trees before it started to glide/fly. There is no reason why this should be the case.There is a particular reason why we might expect not to see this particular feature developed. The reversed hallux is useful for perching in trees. It is, on the other hand, useless for climbing them. The trees-down hypothesis has Archaeopteryx descended from a tree-climbing dinosaur.Now, the way to check my reasoning would be to find out whether squirrels and the like have a reversed hallux.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You're claiming that its feet should have been completely adapted to arborial living. Why? Yes, well, I'm not sure that the appropriate comparison for a tree-dwelling rodent should be either an ungulate or a semi-aquatic rodent with webbed feet.If you compare the feet of the adorable little Southern flying squirrel is RAZD's link to those of, say, a gerbil, can you see any significant difference?Squirrel feet are well adopted to running on the flat too, you know. Nippy little creatures, they are.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

* sigh *But not that they were completely adapted to that in every respect before the evolution of wings (which, under the TDH, was also an adaptation to living in trees, and arguably a much more useful one then, e.g. a reversed hallux). There is nothing in the hypothesis which demands that Archaeopteryx should have evolved "feet-first".Can you point out any adaptation for arboreal life which is "missing" from the foot of Archaeopteryx (other than the reversed hallux, which is also "missing" from the Southern flying squirrel)?If you can show me some adaptation which all arboreal animals have, and Archaepteryx lacks, I shall eat the primitive ancestor of a crow.'Til then, the point is moot.