Thanks for that. I will take on trust the comments from Stephen Ambrose, which makes it a far more credible story. On the quote below, this clenched foot idea, as in this quote has always seemed very strange to me: “The toes are clenched, with the long hind toe projecting below the three front ones, which are bent up out of the way.” Apart from that “bent up” is completely nonsensical. As a hypothesis is seems to have little if any evidence or investigation.
With feet adapted for grappling why would they close them? If “small, light birds are seized in his outstretched foot”, why then would the toes be clenched for a big bird and what about in-between prey and at what point of the attack does the falcon decide how to hold its toes?
I read somewhere that another person has disputed this clenched foot idea on the basis that the few photos available that show this attack appear show a fully open foot.
I have long suspected that this clenched foot idea started during falconry times of centuries ago, as a pure fantasy, based on that a human punch is considered as more severe than a human slap (as if that was relevant). Admittedly it is hard to get to see this from the ground but the few photos that appear to show this (that were presumably not available for “J.A. Baker’s classic (1967) monograph on The Peregrine”), show the feet fully open.
Philip Veerman
To be fair to the research team, there is no reference in the original scientific paper to Peregrines striking their prey in the air with their beaks. The paper can be downloaded online and the details are provided below. The paper was examining evolutionary divergence of the Peregrine and Saker Falcons and investigated genes involved in beak development, olfaction and arid environment-related homeostasis (osmoregulation and thermoreguation). So it’s possible that reference to Peregrines using their beak to strike prey was artistic licence by the BBC journalist reporting the story.
Stephen Ambrose Ryde NSW
