[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Microraptor also ate fish
> > You would have to demonstrate hunting is more parsimonious in both cases,
> > and that hunting arboreal birds in trees is more parsimonious than doing so
> > on the ground in the first case. My cats have caught their share of
> > arboreal birds (mostly juncos, robins and starlings) in my life, and every
> > time I've seen it, the bird's been on the ground.
> I've been to my share of aquariums which house mudskippers, and every time i
> looked in, the fish were out of the water.
> If you aren't willing to entertain the possibility that _Microraptor_ can
> pluck fish from the surface of a body of water (or a puddle), then perhaps
> you would be willing to entertain the possibility that _Microraptor_ is
> getting its fish from the trees it glides to & fro from?
Why does everyone seem to assume when I say "the fossil described can't tell us
whether Microraptor preyed or scavenged the fish it ate" I'm actually saying "I
don't think Microraptor preyed upon that fish"? They are not the same