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

Re: (arthritic) Sauropods vs. Gravity - all

On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 NJPharris@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/5/02 12:04:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> TiJaWi@agron.iastate.edu writes:
> > >Personally, I like the idea that a placental mammal the size of a
> >  >sauropod could never reproduce, because the young would never fit >through
> >  its mother's birth canal, due to scaling effects between adult >and infant
> >  placental mammals.
> >
> >  I would guess whales are the exception to this.
> Sorry.  I screwed that up.  I was referring to the paper mentioned by HP
> Holtz earlier today, hypothesizing that the long *gestation times* of such
> large mammals would hinder their establishing sustainable populations.  My
> bad.

A quick search for facts on the web shows that the gestation period of
large whales is actually about *half* that of elephants (about a year as
opposed to nearly 2 years for the elephants). Exactly how strong is the
relationship between size and gestation period? Are whales exempt from the
usual rules somehow? (By being aquatic? How would that matter?)

 The Dinosauricon        <http://dinosauricon.com>
  BloodySteak             <http://www.bloodysteak.com>
   personal                <keesey@bigfoot.com> --> <tmk@dinosauricon.com>
    Dinosauricon-related    <dinosaur@dinosauricon.com>
     AOL Instant Messenger   <Ric Blayze>
      ICQ                     <77314901>
       Yahoo! Messenger        <Mighty Odinn>