Sounds like they save the bird energy at multiple points. Also interesting that they seem generally rare-ish among birds (AFAIK).
Cool discovery and writeup!
Sounds like they save the bird energy at multiple points. Also interesting that they seem generally rare-ish among birds (AFAIK).
Cool discovery and writeup!
I've seen various citations for them being on all flighted birds, all birds, and all birds with the exception of hummingbirds. ๐คช
As you hinted in your other comment, there are avian dinosaurs and some other prehistoric birds not related to modern birds with them, so now there is the thought that alulae are another form of convergent evolution.




I found a research paper on their evolution that seems interesting that I'll have to read today.
It's a cool bit of anatomy we often don't notice, but it seems a very crucial bit of kit for birds, so it's totally worth learning about!
Wow, TIL!
Also impressive how efficient the bastards must be, given how small they seem in those examples.
It doesn't sound like it takes much to get the job done. Not that I understand it, but they create vortices that then direct the air currents where they need to go.
It usually happens so fast and while the bird is in motion we don't see it with our eyes in real time, but searching "[bird_name] landing" got me plenty of results if you wish to see the bastard wings of a particular bird. I tried to find ones on ostriches, but didn't see anything I could be totally positive were alulae.
Thinking about it, all feathers are there to save energi in one way or another.
And they evidently developed well before flight, for completely different reasons.
It has canards!

Yikes, I tried to look up the difference between leading edge slats and canards and got immediately lost! ๐
All kinds of things about static instability, shifting center of gravity, and angle of attack...
All I know is as an 80s kid that thought military vehicles were neat, I will always remember the X-29 looking like the future.

So stability in this case means the force trying to make the plane fly straight and level; stability greater than 0 means if the controls were locked in place, the plane would try to fly straight and level. Less than zero means it's constantly trying to turn. This is good if you want maneuverability and making constant minor corrections is fine.
That makes sense. Refreshing myself on the X-29, I remember its inherent instability being something of note. Thinking about it now, I can understand that being something desired or undesired depending on the outcome one wants. I recall learning about countersteering a bicycle to get better turning by inducing instability, which sounds bad on its own, but otherwise one doesn't get the maneuverability to not crash on sharp turns. Meanwhile, the X-29 wiki said that should the stability systems that make 40 adjustments per second suddenly fail for some reason, basically the thing would become so unstable it would disintegrate before the pilot could even think of ejecting.
Yes, as long as you are holding the handlebar forward, the bike's stability is negative; it wants to fall over. If you release the handlebar, assuming you're going fast enough, the bike will pick itself up. This is easier to feel in motorcycles where the forces are greater.
I remember a number of people referring to even walking as just controlled falling. Thinking about all these examples really makes me consider how much we purposefully lose balance without even considering it! Next time I'm clumsy, I will have to say I'm just working on experimental forms of stability control. ๐
Anything and everything about non-human animals.
Rules: