[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: mammal mystery
>John Bois wrote:
>> Increasing size doesn't mean thriving; it means increasing size.
>Thriving is precisely what increasing size means. Animals living in an
>environment that can support greater size get bigger. It's been a simple
>fact since the Paleozoic. Being satisfied with the statement that
>"increasing size means increasing size" is somewhat less than a bold
>> If you
>> ask me, a group of species which keeps no really small things (moussize)
>> among their members is doomed.
Rhinos are probably the most successful order of large mammals in
history. I'm not aware of any mouse-size rhino remains.
>Can you be serious? A "group of species" is referred to as a "genus." Do
>you mean that elephants are doomed because there are no mouse-sized
>elephants? Are we doomed because there are no mouse-sized hominids?
>> 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
There may have been less cover than there is now. Didn't grasses
only make an appearance very late in the dinos' reign?
>Many, many dinosaurs were not bipedal. Even assuming they were, what's
"The more television I watch, the more I wonder why I'm not already
supreme ruler of earth." --Dogbert