Crocs hunt with sticks, researchers say

Posted on: 8:54 am, December 6, 2013, by

Everglades National Park

(CNN) — If you’re a bird, beware an alligator with a stick. That’s because some species of crocodiles, including the American alligator, use sticks as lures, scientists say.

It’s the first time the use of a tool has been documented in reptiles, according to the study published in the current edition of Ethology, Ecology and Evolution.

“This study changes the way crocodiles have historically been viewed,” the study’s author, Vladimir Dinets, a research assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Tennessee, said in a news release. “They are typically seen as lethargic, stupid and boring.”

Here’s what the crocs do that takes a big bite out of that impression.

Dinets said the reptiles will gather sticks on their snouts and then lie still in the water. When a bird seeks a perch or tries to grab one of those sticks to make a nest, the croc lunges quickly. It usually ends badly for the bird.

The behavior was first observed in 2007 among crocodiles in India, according to the researchers. Dinets and his research team then confirmed it by observing alligators in Louisiana over the course of a year. They also found the gators used the stick lures more often during the birds’ nesting season, from March to May.

Dinets said the study has implications far beyond the swamps of Louisiana and India. Dinosaurs could have been up to similar subterfuge, he said.

“These discoveries are interesting not just because they show how easy it is to underestimate the intelligence of even relatively familiar animals, but also because crocodilians are a sister taxon of dinosaurs and flying reptiles,” meaning they lie close on the family tree, said Dinets, who worked on the study with researchers from the St. Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park in Florida.

So what did a T-rex use to catch a pterodactyl? Maybe a log?

By Brad Lendon

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2013 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.

1 Comment

  • NOT MADE BY NATURE! Just because something exists in nature doesn’t mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, “Mother Nature” would have no ability to re-organize them into a cell. It takes an already existing cell to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn’t invent or design it! Nature didn’t originate the cell or any form of life.

    Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it’s irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Only evolution within “kinds” is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across “kinds” (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Survival of the fittest would actually have prevented evolution across kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition). I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, “Junk DNA,” genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

    Natural selection doesn’t produce biological traits or variations. It can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection. Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

    What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn’t mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, “Junk DNA” isn’t junk. These “non-coding” segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Sincerely,
    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. theology/biology)

    Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

    * I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The East” for my writings on religion and science, and I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards) defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities

Comments are closed.