[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Microraptor also ate fish
Seagulls catch live fish
So do crows
Senior Principal Preparator
American Museum of Natural History
(212) 496 3544
On 4/23/13 11:09 AM, "don ohmes" <email@example.com> wrote:
>Tue, Apr 23, 2013 4:18 AM EDT Mickey Mortimer wrote:
>>>Don Ohmes wrote-
>>> If an animal has the tools to catch live fish, predation is a much
>>>reliable method of obtaining a given quantity of food than scavenging,
>>>special conditions like anoxic events excepted.<<
>>Finally, we actually a possible argument for parsimony besides Xing et
>>al.'s "short spoilage time". Now, do we actually know that living
>>animals capable of catching fish eat more fish they caught themselves
>>than fish they scavenged? I think this isn't so clear cut. A
>>specialized fishing animal like a skimmer, sure. A more generalist
>>aquatic predator like a heron, probably. But what about something even
>>more generalist like a gull? Do gulls kill more fish than they
>>scavenge? I wouldn't feel confident saying yes. Is there literature
>>out there on this?<
>Do gulls actually fish, beyond the classic bait ball?
>In any case, I do not believe that I could look at the skeleton of a gull
>and say "look, predatory tools!"
>A beak for processing meat, but no _catching_ equipment...
>>Regarding anoxic events, aren't they supposed to be very common in the
>>Jehol habitat, and indeed the very reason specimens are preserved so
>>well and so many aerial taxa are preserved? And if that's true, surely
>>it would influence any calculation for fish scavenging being
>Still, they are special events - otherwise there would be nothing to
>scavenge. Or catch.