gmane.science.dinosaurs.general

Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Don Ohmes — 2012-05-25T17:26:15

Like beach balls, plastic flamingos, and goats.

On 5/24/2012 12:44 AM, Tim Williams wrote:

 > But if you're a theropod, and you want to spend a large
 > part of your life sitting on boughs or branches, you need to have a
 > way of holding on.

Evidence, please...

In particular, evidence of the need for special equipment, beyond the 
standard small theropod package.

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Anthony Docimo — 2012-05-25T16:55:26



----------------------------------------


 So we can understand how something works, by watching something which is near-enough to the ancient organism's methods.



 Fine.  Then what behaviors should we use and reconstruct?


So...we're back to looking for modern bird anatomy in proto- and non-birds?


That's why some of us mention non-bird analogies.

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Jason Brougham — 2012-05-25T12:39:44

Tim has suggested that the differing leg proportions of modern birds and basal paravians make them poor analogs for one another.

I investigated this possibility. In Bipedalism, Flight, and the Evolution of Theropod Locomotor Diversity. Stephen M. Gatesy, Kevin M. Middleton. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jun. 19, 1997), pp. 308-329 the leg proportions of various theropods are measured and plotted out.

First finding, Archaeopteryx does not group with cursors. It groups with Confuciusornis, Sinornis and Cathayornis. This cluster overlaps with Galliform birds (Fig 5 B). The nearest non avian - theropods are troodontids like Saurornithoides, Sinornithoides and oviraptorids like Avimimus.

So, the empirical evidence indicates that galliform birds are definitely good analogs for basal avialans as far as leg proportions go.
________________________________________
From: owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu [owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu] on behalf of Tim Williams [tijawi< at >gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:13 AM
To: dinosaur< at >usc.edu
Subject: Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Anthony Docimo <keenir< at >hotmail.com> wrote:



There may not be a "great analog".  Not in the modern world, anyway.
Why is it so important to have a modern analog in the first place?


With birds we have a group that evolved from within a lineage of
erect, terrestrial obligate bipeds.  This might only have happened
once in the history of the Earth (dunno about pterosaurs).  It may not
be appropriate to use behaviors documented in modern birds (which
collectively represent a highly derived subset of Avialae) to try and
reconstruct incipient arboreal or flight behaviors in basal paravians
or basal avialans.  WAIR has been criticized for this reason.


This issue is not unique to avian evolution, BTW.  There is a
hypothetical scenario for the origin of flight in insects that uses
surface-skimming behavior in stoneflies (Plecoptera) as a model for
how pterygote insects evolved fli
criticized on several fronts, especially given that Plecoptera are
fairly derived within the Pterygota, and surface-skimming in modern
stoneflies is clearly derived from flapping flight.  Also, it is not
clear whether the first pterygotes were even aquatic; for example,
basal pterygotes such as the Palaeodictyoptera (which includes the
so-called 'six-winged' insects) were terrestrial as both nymphs and
adults.


To answer Jason's query, it is quite possible that small basal
paravians moved around in trees, without needing a long or reversed
hallux.  But this is not the same as saying that they were arboreal.
To approach this issue scientifically, I think we have to identify
morphological correlates of arboreality in fossil theropods, rather
than invoke behaviors in modern birds as "easy" for any small theropod
to do.






Cheers

Tim

Geometric Morphometrics courses

Soledad Esteban — 2012-05-25T09:04:52

Dear colleagues:

This e-mail is to inform you of some courses on Geometric Morphometrics, which may would be of your interest. I would appreciate if you could distribute this information between your colleagues:

"Introduction to Geometric Morphometrics". June 12-15, 2012. Instructors: Dr. Chris Klingenberg (University of Manchester, UK) and Dr. Jesús Marugán-Lobón (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid). Just 5 places left. More information at: http://www.transmittingscience.org/introduction_to_gm.htm

“3D Geometric Morphometrics”. July 17-20, 2012. Instructor: Dra Melissa Tallman (CUNY/AMNH, New York). Early registration until May 31. More information at: http://www.transmittingscience.org/3d_gm.htm

“Geometric Morphometrics and Phylogeny”. September 4-7, 2012. Instructor: Dr. Chris Klingenberg (University of Manchester, UK). More information at: http://www.transmittingscience.org/gm_and_phylogeny.htm

For any questions: courses< at >transmittingscience.org.
These courses will be held in the premises of Sabadell of the Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont (Barcelona, Spain). They are co-organized by Transmitting Science and el Institut Catalá de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont. 

Best regards

Soledad De Esteban Trivigno
Area de Paleobiología
Institut Català de Paleontologia
Edifici ICP, Campus de la UAB
08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès
Barcelona. Spain
00-34-935868334
www.icp.cat

Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

K Kripchak — 2012-05-25T08:52:47

Tim,

Good points. At least we see some things eye to eye ;-)

My whole thesis boils down to this:

"If it didn't have [insert arboreal character of choice], it wasn't
arboreal,"... but how does selection work for [insert arboreal
character of choice] if they weren't up in the trees enough to make it
a selective situation?

Let's pick on everyone's favorite, perching... Of course they were up
in the trees a great deal before perching was developed to
'standards', and using a manus to assist in climbing, along with a
modified second toe, are parts of a sound hypothesis dealing with how
this most likely played out.

Character acquisition... (A) Climbing with front and back limbs to (B)
better balance develops along with increased perching abilities due to
variations and selection, allowing for the manus, at the same time, to
decrease its ability to grasp (including using the claws on the
hands). Then and only then is perching fully developed, and only after
the animal had been arboreal for quite a while. Like I've said before,
a whale doesn't evolve flippers, and THEN jump into the ocean… It
starts out with getting its feet wet (as in non-flipper feet), then
flippers are selected for in the new environment. ;-)

This is a perfectly workable hypothesis, and I believe it takes
gold-medal mental gymnastic of someone firmly set in his ways to argue
that this hypothesis is any less likely.

Good discussion...

Thanks.

Kris


On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Tim Williams <tijawi< at >gmail.com> wrote:

Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Tim Williams — 2012-05-25T06:13:01



There may not be a "great analog".  Not in the modern world, anyway.
Why is it so important to have a modern analog in the first place?


With birds we have a group that evolved from within a lineage of
erect, terrestrial obligate bipeds.  This might only have happened
once in the history of the Earth (dunno about pterosaurs).  It may not
be appropriate to use behaviors documented in modern birds (which
collectively represent a highly derived subset of Avialae) to try and
reconstruct incipient arboreal or flight behaviors in basal paravians
or basal avialans.  WAIR has been criticized for this reason.


This issue is not unique to avian evolution, BTW.  There is a
hypothetical scenario for the origin of flight in insects that uses
surface-skimming behavior in stoneflies (Plecoptera) as a model for
how pterygote insects evolved flight.  This scenario has been
criticized on several fronts, especially given that Plecoptera are
fairly derived within the Pterygota, and surface-skimming in modern
stoneflies is clearly derived from flapping flight.  Also, it is not
clear whether the first pterygotes were even aquatic; for example,
basal pterygotes such as the Palaeodictyoptera (which includes the
so-called 'six-winged' insects) were terrestrial as both nymphs and
adults.


To answer Jason's query, it is quite possible that small basal
paravians moved around in trees, without needing a long or reversed
hallux.  But this is not the same as saying that they were arboreal.
To approach this issue scientifically, I think we have to identify
morphological correlates of arboreality in fossil theropods, rather
than invoke behaviors in modern birds as "easy" for any small theropod
to do.






Cheers

Tim

FW: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Jason Brougham — 2012-05-25T03:27:23

________________________________________
From: Jason Brougham
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:27 PM
To: tijawi< at >gmail.com
Subject: RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

You are right and we agree that arboreality in basal paravians is not proven and should not be assumed. I have an open mind as to whether basal paravians were arboreal or terrestrial, as well as the possibilities of mixed habitat, including roosting. I certainly do not think there is conclusive evidence for roosting in these early forms, but I have been keenly interested to see how many of the most unlikely modern birds, including highly cursorial ones and even some of the few birds with no halluces, can roost and even nest in trees.

I wonder why you say that galliforms are poor analogs for basal paravians? The only aspects of the latter bauplan you named are long necks and long legs and leg proportions. if cursorial theropods like turkeys aren't good analogs for cursorial theropods like, say, Caudipteryx, then what are? And what living animal would you say is the best analog for Archaeopteryx?

Perhaps you could strengthen your arguments by explicitly listing those differences between the bauplan of basal paravians and modern birds that may make it impossible or unlikely for the former to roost in trees.

You did say that petrels have the benefit of being descended from a  perching bird. This benefit, I guess, in your context is simply being relatively squat. But Epidendrosaurus may be equally or even more short necked and short legged compared to petrels. And how does a long - necked bauplan keep an animal from roosting anyway? No non-avian theropod has legs as disproportionately long as the Secretarybird, Sagittarius. Yet they perch quite readily (albeit with good halluces).

Galliforms have a rudimentary hallux that is elevated above the other toes, but it can usually touch the ground. Nonetheless, I have many photos of turkeys roosting in trees, adopting postures where the hallux is held clear and does not oppose the other toes 
osture is often used by galliforms in trees and is rarely mentioned. This is where the birds climb around on slender branches by catching the branches between their longer toes, say between II and III or III and IV. I don't know if they can pinch the branches or simply catch them fork-like and press down with their body mass. I can document in in grouse, turkeys, and chickens. This method should be entirely possible in basal paravians.

I guess to make any progress in this matter we'd have to compile a multivariate data set, including many body proportions and hallucal morphologies, and see if there is a strong signal of what range of measurements in morphological characters correlates with roosting. If all basal paravians fall outside that range, then we'd have some evidence that you're correct in doubting they could roost.

I don't think anyone's ever done that with anything other than toe proportions, have they?

One last thing, lizards, snakes, and frogs have also given rise to arboreal forms multiple times. Comparative studies could also benefit from looking at how they made the transitions to roosting, nesting, and even gliding.
________________________________________
From: owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu [owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu] on behalf of Tim Williams [tijawi< at >gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:18 PM
To: dinosaur< at >usc.edu
Subject: Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Jason Brougham <jaseb< at >amnh.org> wrote:

Turkeys have a descended, reversed hallux that is eminently capable of
opposing the anterior toes.  It's just not as specialized for perching
as in those birds (including other galliforms, like cracids) that
spend much more of their time in trees.  The peacock is similar to the
turkey in this 

That's not what I said at all.  What I said was that the morphology of
modern flighted birds is quite different to that of theropods like
_Archaeopteryx_ or _Microraptor_.

I believe that petrels can roost in trees.  I also happen to think
that it's largely irrelevant to the ecologies of _Archaeopteryx_ or
_Microraptor_.

Again, that's not actually what I said.  I was speaking to the overall
bauplan.  Paravians like _Archaeopteryx_ or _Microraptor_ were
cursors; the proportions and ranges of motion at the joints reflect
that.

But not to petrels, which is what my statement was in response to.

Turkeys and peacocks are poor analogs for basal paravians.

identified and measured a set of

Fair enough.  But I'll turn this statement around and say this
possibility (roosting behavior in basal paravians) should not be
*assumed* until this work is done.  Simply saying "Well,
petrels/turkeys/tinamous roost in trees, why not _Archaeopteryx_ or
_Microraptor_?" is not a valid scientific argument.

Cheers

Tim

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Anthony Docimo — 2012-05-25T02:29:20



----------------------------------------

 That's the problem  - you aren't saying what is sufficiently theropodian.  So we have to guess.


 Tree kangaroos...but what about Red kangaroos?

does that qualify as a sufficiently analagous creature to the paravian discussion?

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Anthony Docimo — 2012-05-25T02:27:32



----------------------------------------


 and our own ancestors had arboreal bauplans...they didn't drop out of the trees with the feet of Moderns; like Paravians, our ancestors initially had to make do with the bauplans they had, even in the new habitat.



 Then what is a great analog for basal paravians?

We would like to know...wouldn't that help a conversation immensely, for us to share a common agreed-upon analogy?

Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Tim Williams — 2012-05-25T02:23:59




Two quick responses:

(1) A kangaroo is "sufficiently theropodian"?  I wouldn't have said so.

(2) What kangaroo are you referring to?  A tree kangaroo
(_Dendrolagus_)?  Despite popular myths to the contrary, tree
kangaroos are actually well-adapted to an arboreal lifestyle.







Cheers

Tim

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.(fixed)

Anthony Docimo — 2012-05-25T02:22:16


sorry - computer trouble for a bit when I was snipping away the paragraphs I wasn't replying to.






which gets us back to the "its not a dinosaur, its a bird" argument.

Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Tim Williams — 2012-05-25T02:18:34



Turkeys have a descended, reversed hallux that is eminently capable of
opposing the anterior toes.  It's just not as specialized for perching
as in those birds (including other galliforms, like cracids) that
spend much more of their time in trees.  The peacock is similar to the
turkey in this respect.




That's not what I said at all.  What I said was that the morphology of
modern flighted birds is quite different to that of theropods like
_Archaeopteryx_ or _Microraptor_.




I believe that petrels can roost in trees.  I also happen to think
that it's largely irrelevant to the ecologies of _Archaeopteryx_ or
_Microraptor_.




Again, that's not actually what I said.  I was speaking to the overall
bauplan.  Paravians like _Archaeopteryx_ or _Microraptor_ were
cursors; the proportions and ranges of motion at the joints reflect
that.




But not to petrels, which is what my statement was in response to.




Turkeys and peacocks are poor analogs for basal paravians.




Fair enough.  But I'll turn this statement around and say this
possibility (roosting behavior in basal paravians) should not be
*assumed* until this work is done.  Simply saying "Well,
petrels/turkeys/tinamous roost in trees, why not _Archaeopteryx_ or
_Microraptor_?" is not a valid scientific argument.







Cheers

Tim

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Jason Brougham — 2012-05-25T01:57:23

Alright, fair enough, petrels are squatter than Archaeopteryx. But there are bipedal, cursorial, theropods with the bauplan of long legs and long necks and small, elevated, halluces that are not fully capable of perching - and they also roost in trees. Galliforms like turkeys, I'm thinking of.

I was worried that someone would say petrels can sit in trees because they descended from birds that had functioning halluces. It seems illogical to say that a morphological character is crucial for a certain function, but that the function can be retained even if the character is lost. Let's just take this moment to note, there are theropods with no halluces that roost and nest in trees. If you don't believe it google image search "petrel tree". The first, second, and fourth images prove the point.

I am troubled that you dismiss any comparison between the function of basal paravians and modern birds because the former have long necks and legs. In reality, this fact is little appreciated, but Microraptor, Anchiornis and Xiaotingia have necks roughly as long as their skulls, putting them closer to medium - length - necked birds like crows than they are to long - necked forms like storks or ducks. The former retain long bony tails, of course, but it's not clear that basal paravians would have had important functional differences from phasianids like peacocks with much heavier and longer masses of feathers on their tails. If turkeys and peacocks aren't close enough to basal paravians for you to serve as analogs, then no animal alive on earth today is, so no analogs can be cited. 

There is no perfect analog alive today for basal paravians, but the imperfect ones we have demonstrate that there is no inviolable rule. No one has identified and measured a set of morphologies that correlate with the ability to roost in trees in living animals, so this possibility cannot be excluded for basal paravians.


________________________________________
From: owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu [owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu] on behalf of Tim Williams [tijaw
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:05 PM
To: dinosaur< at >usc.edu
Subject: Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

K Kripchak <saurierlagen1978< at >gmail.com> wrote:




Archaeopterygids, jeholornithids and many small deinonychosaurs might
indeed qualify as incipiently arboreal.  _Jeholornis_ was found with
seeds in its stomach.  Maybe it scaled trunks to get to the seeds far
from the ground, then glided back down.




Something along those lines, yes.  But their lack of arboreality in
these theropods is not just due to the pedal morphology.  Their
overall morphology (limb proportions, degree of motion at the joints)
is inconsistent with arboreal behavior.  Spider monkey, my foot.




I agree.  Arboreal behavior had to start somewhere.  But IMHO it's
significant that the overall proportions of _Archaeopteryx_,
_Microraptor_ etc are those of a bipedal, cursorial theropod.  They
all had a long neck, a long tail (although generally shorter than the
ancestral condition), and long legs for terrestrial locomotion.


This brings me to the petrel example.  Certain petrels can and do
roost in trees, in spite of the reduced or absent hallux.  The webbed
feet are capable of gripping branches.   My guess is that the anterior
digits toes wrap over the branch.  Cormorants do the same thing, with
rocks and branches.


But petrels, as typical for procellariform birds, have bodies built
for flight and life at sea.  They have short necks, short tails and
short legs.  All neornitheans have the benefit of being descended from
an arboreal, perching bird.  Comparing these advanced birds with
_Archaeopteryx_, _Microraptor_ etc is inappropriate, given just how
different the bauplans are.  It's just as bad as using the juvenile
hoatzin as an analog for tree-climbing behavior in _Archaeopteryx_.


Tinamous are known to roost in trees, in spite of the reduced or
absent hallux.  They don't really perch, and use their tarsi to help
them "sit".  But again, although terrestrial, the bauplan is that of
an advanced modern avian.




No, I didn't intend to direct the "opinion-based" barb at you.  I was
thinking more of the recent _Microraptor_-as-a-colugo-like-glider
paper, and similar publications.




If an animal habitually spent its time in trees, then th
wouldn't be ambiguous.




Cool: agreed!  But if we're going to put microraptorans in trees, it
has to be for the right reasons.





Cheers

Tim

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Anthony Docimo — 2012-05-25T01:25:28



----------------------------------------

Wonder if this is one of the reasons why the birds-are-dino-cousins(not descendants) groups decided that it had to be a non-theropodian archosaur

 great.  so just find us something sufficiently theropodian.  (a kangaroo, perhaps?  wait, they can climb trees too)



 to be the pinata.

Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Tim Williams — 2012-05-25T01:05:52




Archaeopterygids, jeholornithids and many small deinonychosaurs might
indeed qualify as incipiently arboreal.  _Jeholornis_ was found with
seeds in its stomach.  Maybe it scaled trunks to get to the seeds far
from the ground, then glided back down.




Something along those lines, yes.  But their lack of arboreality in
these theropods is not just due to the pedal morphology.  Their
overall morphology (limb proportions, degree of motion at the joints)
is inconsistent with arboreal behavior.  Spider monkey, my foot.




I agree.  Arboreal behavior had to start somewhere.  But IMHO it's
significant that the overall proportions of _Archaeopteryx_,
_Microraptor_ etc are those of a bipedal, cursorial theropod.  They
all had a long neck, a long tail (although generally shorter than the
ancestral condition), and long legs for terrestrial locomotion.


This brings me to the petrel example.  Certain petrels can and do
roost in trees, in spite of the reduced or absent hallux.  The webbed
feet are capable of gripping branches.   My guess is that the anterior
digits toes wrap over the branch.  Cormorants do the same thing, with
rocks and branches.


But petrels, as typical for procellariform birds, have bodies built
for flight and life at sea.  They have short necks, short tails and
short legs.  All neornitheans have the benefit of being descended from
an arboreal, perching bird.  Comparing these advanced birds with
_Archaeopteryx_, _Microraptor_ etc is inappropriate, given just how
different the bauplans are.  It's just as bad as using the juvenile
hoatzin as an analog for tree-climbing behavior in _Archaeopteryx_.


Tinamous are known to roost in trees, in spite of the reduced or
absent hallux.  They don't really perch, and use their tarsi to help
them "sit".  But again, although terrestrial, the bauplan is that of
an advanced modern avian.




No, I didn't intend to direct the "opinion-based" barb at you.  I was
thinking more of the recent _Microraptor_-as-a-colugo-like-glider
paper, and similar publications.




If an animal habitually spent its time in trees, then the characters
wouldn't be ambiguous.




Cool: agreed!  But if we're going to put microraptorans in trees, it
has to be for the right reasons.





Cheers

Tim

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Anthony Docimo — 2012-05-25T00:25:22



*nods*

Or illustrated with the dromaeosaurs draped on the branch like a leopard's meal   (rather than with the backbone a parallel line above the branch's line)

hmm...or not.  (it'd be one way to invite a caption of "after a long day of trying to fly, mr. dromaeosaur collapses for a nap")

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Dann Pigdon — 2012-05-24T23:57:34


Leopards certainly don't need to hold on when they sleep in a tree. A quick google image search 
of "leopard sleeping in tree" reveals quite a gallery of casual branch-draping, with no hint of a claw 
being used to grip onto anything.

The pubic boot of most theropods would seem to make that an uncomfortable way to sleep - except 
for dromaeosaurs of course, with their retroverted pubes. 

Now that'd make for an interesting illustration - a group of sleeping dromaeosaurs draped leopard-
style over the branches of a large tree, with their tails hanging down vertically beneath them.

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Jaime Headden — 2012-05-24T23:57:29

I am delurking for the time being to make what I think is a fairly simple observation:

The responses to this unlaudable series of papers, rife as they are with problematic assertions, will only serve to reinforce to the authors what might be termed as a persecution complex. Namely that one is like unto Galileo, in that despite these responses he (or she) will be eventually proven right. Pointing out facts typically does not dissuade people to believing the opposite of their assertion, but rather reinforces that belief.

If a person will not be persuaded, do not attempt to persuade them. Instead, release a report that simply and plainly argues opposite that point, and move on. Point to it when it is brought up, but do not stand and debate. Debating is more fun to those who compel by social or emotional appeal, rather than through reason and openness to contradictory statements, and in this I think there is no "win" for those who argue against the "ABSRD" and "MANIAC" positions of Burnham, Martin, Czercaks, Feduccia, et al..

Further formal responses to Gong are the best, and I think only, way to contradict the data.

Cheers,

Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff (site v2)
http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion Backs)

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Jason Brougham — 2012-05-24T23:51:04

Atlantic and Common Diving Petrel roost and/or nest in trees with no halluces.

________________________________________
From: owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu [owner-DINOSAUR< at >usc.edu] on behalf of Tim Williams [tijawi< at >gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:42 PM
To: dinosaur< at >usc.edu
Subject: Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Don Ohmes <d_ohmes< at >yahoo.com> wrote:

Don, which "counter-examples" are these?  I'm happy to rise to this
challenge, but sorry I honestly don't recall these counter-examples.

If your counter-example was some kind of mammal, I probably disagreed
with it being an analog for theropod behavior because... well, it was
a mammal.

Cheers
Tim

Re: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Tim Williams — 2012-05-24T23:42:58



Don, which "counter-examples" are these?  I'm happy to rise to this
challenge, but sorry I honestly don't recall these counter-examples.




If your counter-example was some kind of mammal, I probably disagreed
with it being an analog for theropod behavior because... well, it was
a mammal.






Cheers
Tim

RE: Microraptor hanqingi, new species from China.

Anthony Docimo — 2012-05-24T23:30:32





Enlarge the hole in a tree.

Lay down on the branch.

 Granted, the koala method (plop down at the fork of branches and shove one's bottom into the split) isn't really an option for archosaurs.