Aw: Re: Microraptor also ate fish

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> 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.