In birds, the ability to move the upper beak relative to the braincase has been the subject of many functional morphological investigations, but in many instances the adaptive significance of cranial kinesis remains unclear. Alternatively, cranial kinesis may be considered a consequence of the general design of the skull, rather than an adaptive trait as such. The present study reviews some results related to the mechanism and functional significance of cranial kinesis in birds. Quantitative three-dimensional X-ray has shown that in skulls morphologically as divers as paleognaths and neognaths the mechanism for elevation of the upper beak is very similar. One of the mechanisms proposed for avian jaw movement is a mechanical coupling of the upper and the lower jaw movement by the postorbital ligament. Such a mechanical coupling would necessitate upper beak elevation. However, independent control of upper and lower jaw has been shown to occur during beak movements in birds. Moreover, kinematic modeling and force measurements suggests that the maximum extensibility of collagen, in combination with the short distance of the insertion of the postorbital ligament to the quadrato-mandibular articulation do not constitute a block to lower jaw depression. The lower jaw ligaments serve to limit the maximal extension of the mandibula. It is suggested here that cranial kinesis in avian feeding may have evolved as a consequence of an increase in eye size. This increase in size led to a reduction of bony bars in the lateral aspect of the skull enabling the transfer of quadrate movement to the upper jaw. The selective forces favoring the development of a kinetic upper beak in birds may be subtle and act in different ecological contexts. Simultaneous movement of the upper and lower jaw not only increases the velocity of beak movements, but with elevated upper beak also less force is required to open the lower jaw. However, the penalty of increased mobility of elements in a lightweight skull and a large eye is potential instability of skull elements during biting, smaller bite forces and limitations on joint reaction forces. Such a lightly built, kinetic skull may have evolved in animals that feed on small plant material or insects. This type of food does not require the resistance of large external forces on the jaws as in carnivores eating large prey.