[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
George replied to my rant about extant megafaunas including dwarfed components
of Pleistocene ones, and said..
> One of those exceptional circumstances to which I referred in previous posts
> on this subject. And the Pleistocene-Recent "dwarfing" is not all that
> significant, anyway. A few percent. Plus a lot of this so-called "dwarfing"
> is an artifact of the differential survival of smaller forms versus the
> simple extinction, without descendant species, of larger forms.
First, I'd like to point out that I didn't say what I did to contradict George's
views: I just intended to provide a bit more info. I have no argument with his
contention that Pleistocene-Recent dwarfing is statistically tiny.
However, the data I have in mind has not constructed biased statistical
artifacts: numerous samples of still extant species show that the species really
do get smaller as they grade from Pleistocene-->modern times. Worldwide dwarfing
of mammalian megafauna happened.
None of this relates to the arguments you guys are having about dinosaurs, so
drop it here. On another issue that I won't bother to address in a separate
post, Stan said that _Compsognathus_ could have climbed like a squirrel. Think
again Stan: that's a preposterous statement.
"Nobody knows about my love, they think he's lost on some horizon"
How about a prize for 'most wasting of bandwidth?'