[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
no easy (mammal) answer
So, in effect, we're in agreement that there is no easy answer to the
young boy's question regarding why prehistoric mammals were small? I
could say they were small to fill a niche in the paleo-ecology not
already filled by the giants within the dinosaur realm. But wouldn't
that be a "pretty" answer with no real scientific backbone?
I could say they weren't as "successful" as the dinosaurs, and so
remained small. But boy will say, "they're still here - - dinosaurs are
not. How can they be failures?" Besides, I'm not sure we could support
any theory suggesting they're gaining on their Mesozoic contemporaries
in regards to size, even with the added evolutionary "time."
So do I simply say, "Kidlet, some things are big, some things are small,
and that's just the way of the world?" There are big marine creatures
along side small...big birds along side small. Maybe there is just a
place in the web of life for all things great and small.
Where are you Gustav Winterfeld, when I need you?? :)
Thanks anyway kids. And if something comes to you...please to email me.
Girl Dino Writer