[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Feathers for S excretion...and tennis balls
Steve Brusatte writes:
<Kidneys seem to suffice in modern mammals, even insectivorous ones. Do
insectivorous mammals have more hair than carnivorous or herbivorous ones?
Is the hair of insectivorous, and therefore sulfur-ingesting, mammals more
laden with sulfur than the hair of carnivorous or herbivorous mammals?>
I'm starting to feel we have whipped this dead horsefly as far as we can.
Reason? Because the questions above are great ones -- given that insects are
a high source of sulfur. But somewhere about a million posts back, I hope I
mentioned the REAL reason I am so skeptical of this hypothesis.
In the ten-thousand or so articles I have read (and written) in
biochemistry, I have NEVER seen it mentioned that insects are anything other
than a NORMAL source of dietary sulfur. Where did Reichholf come up with his
basic datum anyway? I think it is wrong. Insects are NOT high sulfur
creatures. And if that assessment is correct, then this whole thread is based
on . . . . . . . . . what?
Thomas P. Hopp
Author of DINOSAUR WARS, a science fiction novel published by iUniverse
Now Humans are the Endangered Species! http://members.aol.com/dinosaurwars