[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Aw: Re: Microraptor also ate fish
> At which point Don's earlier point comes into play: we may not have any good
> way of telling if microraptorans sometimes spent time in trees (roosting,
> etc) unless it could somehow be ruled out entirely (which it can't, in this
> case). I pose the same question I have previously, however: what is the
> justification for trying to put Microraptor in an arboreal environment to
> begin with?
> (Note: I'm not suggesting that Microraptor must have been terrestrial; my
> point is merely that before we start debating arboreal potential, we should
> be clear about why the debate exists in the first place).
> --Mike H
I haven't caught up with this discussion, but just to make sure it's mentioned
at some point: goats are specialized rock climbers and have several adaptations
to that. It's not surprising that they walk up the more rock-like trees without
much difficulty when they think it's worth it. They can't support an argument
to the effect of "anything will successfully climb trees given an incentive".
So, I have to agree: what is the justification for trying to put *Microraptor*
in an arboreal environment to begin with?
I hope Alexander Dececchi will publish on this. Last SVP meeting, after his
talk, he scorned the idea of climbing *Microraptor* without going into details,
calling it the worst possible climber or something.