[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Climbers

...and I recently saw a programme on treetop-life in the Amazon, where
the biologist expressed surprise that she repeatedly caught coatimundis
in her traps 30 or 40 metres above the forest floor, where they were
"supposed" to be according to their "normal (90% of time)" lifestyle.
The surprise was due to the fact that they have _no_ specific
adaptations for climbing (prehensile tail, claws etc) but seem to manage
to get about even on small branches quite comfortably.

So we don't even have to look for a truly arboreal dinosaur ancestor,
just to confuse things further....

>     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: Origin of Birds-arboreal biped
> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 22:53:11 -0800
> From: Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> At 12:33 PM 12/14/97 EST, Dinogeorge wrote:
> >The earliest tree-climbing archosaurs were likely scansorial animals
> >like rats
> >and mice. I came to the BCF idea not long after watching our pet rats
> >climb
> >around their cages in apparent disregard of the law of gravity.
> Hmm, so we have a confluence of vision here, eh.
> > Their
> >feet are
> >built for >both< running and climbing.
> >
> Do tell.  _Peromyscus leucopus_ runs up trees without even slowing down.
> And I believe I have seen it meadow relative, _Peromyscus maniculatus_
> actually climb *grass*.  (Big Bluestem is quite a robust grass).
> Looking at the reconstruction of _Scleromochlus_, and knowing that it is
> mouse-sized, I would not care to bet it could not climb trees, were such
> available to it.
> --------------
> May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com
>                                           sfriesen@netlock.com

cheers, martin
Martin Human
TID Information Development Group, Hewlett-Packard, Grenoble, France
[33] 4 76 14 65 34