[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Redwoods and baby sauropods
> Hmm ok Betty, but the largest tree was estimated at having a mass of 1
> lbs, ie about 446 tons (according to the blurb issued by the State Park). If
> say that around the edge of a forest the trees are smaller (say 1/4 size) we
> still have a tree of 100 tons or so. Still rather a dangerous size to be
> over, even if you're a dino of 30+ tons (and could it be done I wonder?).
> you stay behind me children while I push over this big tree. oops sorry
> did it fall on your head?"
You're talking about redwoods right? Isn't your point invalidated a bit by
choosing the very biggest of trees and not the very biggest of sauropods?
First of all, I suspect an average size conifer is in the Western
Hemlock-Douglass Fir-Western Redcedar range, not the redwood range. These
trees are substantially smaller than redwoods and would have been felled by
something in the Apatosaurus range more easily. Also, there are indications
some sauropods might have lived in the Morrison that were large enough to
feel something redwood sized; I'm speaking of Amphicoelias fragilisimus
Another thing is that knocking a tree over wouldn't be too quick. I'd think
that a diplodocoid would do something like rear up and rock the tree back and
forth loosening the roots until it was no longer stable and able to fall
Lastly, I doubt that sauropods would have done this much unless they were
feeding babies and young animals that were not large enough to reach leafy
branches, and all the underbrush available to them was ferns and unpalatable
mosses. If the animal is already rearing, why waste the energy of rocking
the tree over if it could just feed where it was? I also doubt that babies
would be smushed by said tree either: trees are noisy when they fall down and
would probably be rocked down slowly, so the babies would have been able to
notice and get out of the way with plenty of time.