[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropods and those little heads
> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:32:10 -0400 (EDT)
> Reply-to: WOwen15778@aol.com
> From: WOwen15778@aol.com
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Sauropods and those little heads
> << <<<<< Even so, endothermy would have been expensive. I don't see
> reason to think that Mesozoic forage and browse was any more nutritious
> (compared to meat) than nowadays. An endothermic animal the size of a
> C-130 Hercules (not Galaxy as I said earlier) would have to tuck into a
> godawful lot of cycads daily.
> Perhaps there is some sort of middle ground? Something that big would be a
> very nice heat reservoir. Perhaps only a low level of endothermy would have
> been needed to maintain the internal temperature?
I suspect that you and George are right. The correct term is
heterothermy though. Endotherms keep their body temperature in a
small range. Heterotherms have a much larger range. As George
suggested, dinosaurs may have been on their way to true endothermy.
A large animal would have less need for strict endothermy anyway. It
would become a limited heterotherm because of the large size anyway.
Don't be confused by the term, as a limited heterotherm is closer to
endothermy than not.
As always, this is only an opinion, subject to
retraction and recall without notice, and with
due respect to others opinions.
Michael Teuton MD