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

RE: Bakker says



I agree with Carl here.
The latter half of the Cretaceous was a real bad time to be around. Lots of
potentially disastrous goings on - almost as many things actually happening,
as there are theories about what happened. Everybody seems to have their pet
theory, based on what best suits the evidence that they have seen. It's
quite likely that the initial extinction trigger event happened at a couple
of different times, in different places and populations.
Larger creatures do seem to be more susceptible to environmental change
(whether bolide impact, sea level changes, or disease etc...) so it's not
unreasonable that they should show the effects. Taking a major factor out of
any ecosystem (large grazers and predators) would produce catastrophic
results for a time, with species thriving in new niches, and dying off in
others.


John


-----Original Message-----
From: Ccookk@aol.com [mailto:Ccookk@aol.com]
Sent: 20 July 1998 03:54
To: candles@jps.net
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Bakker says


Earl,
        Why did scavengers survive? For the same reasons they survive today!
They are either immune to the disease, or the microbe dies with the victim,
and the scavenger still isn't affected. A few years ago, a very large herd
of
african hippo's died of anthrax, and it was a veritable feast for the
crocks. 
        Personally, I feel that it was a number of combined catastrophies
over a long
period of time that eventually doomed the dino's. I think that Bakker's idea
bears a lot of weight, and should not be discarded on one unknown
possibility.
It is nice to speculate, but lets keep in mind the time frame we are
concerned
with here.
Carl