[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: mammal mystery

John Bois wrote:

> Without wanting to drag everyone through this again (I don't want my plug
> pulled), my view is that dinosaurs grew big because of their influence on
> each other, i.e., it payed to be bigger or meaner than the other dinos who
> would eat you.  This led to the bad situation of laying precious offspring
> where everything which could eat them could see them. I also speculate
> that the defences which worked so well against big predators were useless
> against more recent arrivals: mammals and modern-aspect birds and that,
> when you take into account the developments of these animals they were
> essentially novel tormenters as far as dinos were concerned.

I'm not sure I understand.  Dinosaurs became extinct because they 
were large and mammals ate all of their eggs?  I believe the current 
theory is that dinoaurs were fairly attentive parents, and if this is 
true I doubt that there would have been much tolerating of shrews 
observed eating the eggs, even assuming that a tiny burrowing animal 
would be able to conduct such raids in such an environment.  The ground 
was pounded by dozens or more of large parents milling around, presumably 
caving in many burrows, etc. I'm sure there was some attrition but could 
this really have caused extinction?  And why after one hundred million 
years of dino/mammal co-existance?  And why didn't small dinosaurs 
survive this great Easter egg hunt?