Re: (Frog hunting) - and a load of XXXX

["philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>]

I observed:
Couldn't you just sit around and wait for a frog in a likely spot?  Why go
up a tree?
You responded:
Higher elevation --> Better vantage point.  Ask any Civil War buff about how
much more advantageous that can be.  ;-)

Well, if you wanted a reasonably accurate count on an army of quick marching
frogs, I could see your point.  Otherwise, being up a tree seems worthwile
only if you want the prey to get close because it could see and outrun you,
and frogs are not sprinters.

I said:
So, is there anything wrong with the assertion that to argue an animal
jumped out of trees, you have to have evidence of a reasonably big prey
animal?
HP Marjanovic responded:
Sounds quite convincing.
You interrupted the flow of agreement:
Not to me it doesn't.  A lot of modern predators that feed on prey much
*smaller* than themselves wait quietly in trees until they observe the prey
of their choice.  Then they make a sudden dash for the prey.  Frilled
lizards, tarsiers and a vast array of predatory bird species come to mind.
Not to mention many insects and spiders.

Lacking expertise, no assertion, but are you sure that the prey isn't
usually of substantial size compared to the hunter?  Seems reasonable that
hiding means prey can see the hunter as well as the hunter can see the prey,
and swooping means the prey's time to get away must be limited because
otherwise the prey would have a reasonable chance to escape.
You could have surprised and outrun the frog (toad?) from a standing start,
so I doubt you spend too much time crouching on the rail of your deck,
hushing the concerned onlookers, even if overpowering frogs (toads?) is a
major pastime.  No?

<Civil war buff, mildly.  Remember the balloons?>