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

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

<The predator merely sits still, hardly expending any energy at all, and
when it sees (or senses) prey - it strikes.  Remember, the rationale for
this type
of predation is *efficiency* not *speed* per se.

This isn't a particularly novel strategy.  It's been perfected by a vast
array of carnivorous and insectivorous animals - and one or two plants, I
might add - though, since they can't roam around looking for prey, they
don't really have a choice about it (apart from those darn triffids!!).>

In Windham's book, the triffids succeeded only because their prey couldn't
see 'em coming.  They needed that to be successful lurk and pounce hunters.
Anyway, my assertion was that the leap, pounce, and climb back strategy (as
opposed to the lurk and pounce strategy) indicates that the prey is of
substantial size compared to the hunter.  The larger energy expenditure
required for leaping and climbing (as well as the greater risk of injury)
implies that the hunter is after prey which could otherwise see the hunter
coming and escape.
You could catch a frog, for example, as easily by running to it as you could
by a leap.  So if frogs were your main prey, you probably would not make a
habit of pouncing from trees, or from deck rails.  Particularly because the
act of leaping would actually make more awkward your attempts to capture
prey outside your leaping range compared to being on the ground already.
You might stay on the deck to spot distant frogs, but you'd often descend,
and not leap, before starting your hunting run at the distant prey.  Your
time on the deck is thus lurking.
As noted, to consider an animal a leap and pounce hunter, you'd also need to
show a large number of tree branches or stones of the right height.
So, I'm not disagreeing with you when you say a particular animal is a leap
and pounce hunter, but I think there are considerations besides physical
capability which should be met to make the idea more plausible.