[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: mammal mystery
On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Larry wrote:
> If you're talking about Mesozoic mammals (and I assume you are), the
> answer is in the question: mammals were so small because dinosaurs were
> so large. Conditions were perfect for the dinosaurs, and they thrived (a
> sure sign of thriving is increase in size), marginalizing the mammals
> into small nocturnal critters for whom tinyness meant a chance to sccot
> away from any small therapod which would waste it's time trying to eat
> your sorry warm little hiney. At the end of the mesozoic, with the
> Dinosaurs gone, mammals came into their own.
Increasing size doesn't mean thriving; it means increasing size. If you
ask me, a group of species which keeps no really small things (moussize)
among their members is doomed.
Dinosaurs were bipedal. This hampered them in close cover where things
suc as mammals, snakes and lizards had an advantage of close-to-the-ground