[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
>scientific investigation!
>
>> 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
>> stealth.

        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
>your point?

bruce

        "The more television I watch, the more I wonder why I'm not already
supreme ruler of earth."  --Dogbert