Cracking the mystery of egg shape
vis.sciencemag.org
vis.sciencemag.org
The problem begins with the paragraph, "What’s the link between flying and egg shape? Birds have a streamlined body plan, and—especially in stronger fliers—their organs are squashed and minimized." The paragraphs that follow this one do a poor job of explaining the model. What the author is trying to say, I think, is that the females of strong fliers, because they have narrow bodies, have narrow oviducts and therefore narrow (and pointy) eggs. That hardly seems an earth (or egg) shattering conclusion. But then we have this: "But it also turns out that egg shape is a balance between two pressures..." a sentence I can't find the significance of. And this fun fact: "If you carefully remove the shell from the membrane, an egg will still retain its shape." Does "egg" there refer to the shell, the membrane, or something else? Clearer, I think, would have been: "If you carefully remove the shell from the membrane, the remaining egg even without the shell will still retain its shape." By the end, I'm left with a cracked and mushy solution to a beautiful and pristine problem.
TLDR anyone?
> What’s the link between flying and egg shape? Birds have a streamlined body plan, and—especially in stronger fliers—their organs are squashed and minimized.
OK, your idea is parent optimized for physical characteristics of progeny, or in this case, the parent is formed by the egg, not the egg by the parent?
In this article, your point would be, because of laying conical eggs, certain species of birds were able to nest on cliffs. So their eggs not rolling made them cliff dwellers?
And similarly, elliptical eggs optimized their mothers for faster flight?
Not sure. Put like that, I'm thinking it's reasonable the parent trying to roost on the cliff came first.
If the eggs are layed on cliffs, then they are conical so they don't roll and fall.
And the thickness of the inner egg membrane plays a role in defining the shape while it's being pressed out.