[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 
> would
> 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.
> 

Rob,

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.  
The 
smaller animal could have subsisted in areas that weren't capable of supporting 
a 
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 
a 
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.

Mark