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

Re: [science or non-science?]



Kendall Clements <k.clements@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> I was going to write in and make the comment that lamniform sharks were 
> not ectotherms (lamnids ARE endotherms - see Block, B.A. and J.R. 
> Finnerty 1994 Endothermy in fishes: a phylogenetic analysis of 
> constraints, predispositions, and selection pressures. Env. Biol. 
> Fish. 40: 283-302), as suggested in one submission, but I relented. 

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Ah, but you did eventually mention it. 

Laminforms are endotherms for the same reason that leatherbacks are
endotherms. They're big, bulky and swim alot. They are functionally
endothermic.

In my original reply, I meant to use ectotherm in place of cold-blooded. All
my examples were of functionally endothermic animals (insects, varanids, them
lamniform fishies). I was just trying to show that you can be active and still
be "cold-blooded."

Archosaur J

Jurassosaurus's Reptipage: A page devoted to the study of the reptilia

http://members.tripod.com/~jurassosauridae/index.html

____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1