[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Tubinates & Nano T.
Rob Meyerson wrote:
> Actually, the folding in Nano's olfactory region could simply provide more
> surface area for the olfactory organ. As a result, Nano's sense of smell
> be much more acute than a proportionally sized Rex. In a way, we could expect
> this type of structure to evolve: assuming that Nano lived in the same
> environment as something from the tyrannosaur family, then a smaller hunter,
> like Nano, would've had to develop some kind of feature that would give it an
> advantage over it's larger contemporaries. Having a better sence of smell
> would've meant that they could smell a meal from a much larger distance. I
> envision Nano occupying a coyote-like niche.
Your position closely matches that of the literature I have seen on the subject
too date. But why should decreased size represent a challenge to Nanotyrannus?
Surely Nano did not compete directly for the same resources as its larger
cousins. So why should it require a feature to "give it an advantage over its
larger contemporaries?" Its size alone is a feature that provides, not an
advantage, but a side-step, just as many species of predator overlap today.
smaller animal could have subsisted in areas that weren't capable of supporting
population of larger carnosaurs.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that larger tyrannosaurids were ectothermic,
only that if their internal regulation was "soft," a smaller animal might have
higher sensitivity to variations in outside air.
Does anyone happen to have a reference that shows the relative size of turbinal
structures in large vs. small mammals and/or large vs. small birds? I may have
to go get some figures for myself.