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


In a message dated 8/13/98 6:27:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jwoolf@erinet.com

<< True.  But you'll agree, I hope <g>, that a species which has some members
 does better at survival than a species that has no members survive.>>

Gee, I never thought of that.
 <<IMHO, even if the extinction was gradual (on a human scale -- say, fifty
 years or so), there is still some insight to be gained form looking at what
 survive and recover vs. what didn't.>>

I'm not suggesting it was gradual, and I'm not suggesting it wasn't.  But IMHO
the fossil record of the K/T extinction event is not resolvable to the extent
you want it to be (i.e., what specific individuals were killed by the event
and what ones were not).  All I'm suggesting is that an event could kill
_individuals_ in a non-selective (random) manner and be followed by
_population_ recovery scenarios that are selective.  Since we're dealing with
populations, one should not assume that a record showing a selective recovery
equates to a selective extinction.  The recovery of a species would depend
upon the characteristics of the individual survivors such as their individual
ability to survive in a post-event environment and their ability to find one
another to mate.