[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fwd: Re: 11th specimen of Archaeopteryx
Hard to imagine a plant too nasty for some bird to nest in. How about
Cactus Wrens in Cholla cactus clumps, or, in my area, Magpies in
Washington Hawthorne trees. The latter builds a full sphere with the
Hawthorne twigs, and I don't know of a nastier tree to work around.
Those nests are certainly safe from ME.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Don Ohmes <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 5:59 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:
>> Clearly intended for the list -- and look, forwarding generates a
>> presentable header:
>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>> Betreff: Re: 11th specimen of Archaeopteryx
>> Datum: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:52:15 -0500
>> Von: Clair Ossian <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> An: <email@example.com>
>> Hmmm...I suggest you try to sit in or build a nest in a cycad.
> Never been a nester -- I have worked on and in Sago Palms as a 100 kg adult,
> Also cabbage palm, and several others -- these may not be technically
> cycads, but the principle is the same, in functional terms. Never noticed
> any unusual bleeding...
>> I grow a number of species and have seen and handled many other species.
>> Cycads commonly have inflexible fronds and leaflets that are generally
>> sharp, jagged, and very easily inflict bloody wounds on mammals (me) when
>> the plants are handled.
>> I have been savagely ripped up on a number of occasions when moving or
>> repotting one :)
>> I suspect that cycads did not make favored nest sites.
> Interesting idea -- a plant clade so fearsome that no vertebrates will
> inhabit it.
> I would argue they would make nice safe places to spend the night for a
> creature of Arch. size, for just the reasons you mention -- I don't remember
> mentioning nesting. Ground-foraging tree-roosters don't necessarily nest in
> trees, anyway -- American Wild Turkeys certainly do not, and bears regularly
> sleep in trees, as example :D...
> I am not claiming that Arch. was a ground-forager that slept in trees,
> ordinary or otherwise -- it is just that 1) the lack of perching pes does
> not exclude them from that lifestyle, and 2) their bodies as seen in the
> record would be suitable for it, given the right vegetative forms.
> Both points always seem to get lost in these discussions.