[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cretaceous taeniodont
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, John Bois wrote:
> The stock answer is that bigger is better in terms of energetics. But I
> reject this since, if you look at a non-log graph of this function, there
> is basically no benefit above horse size. A better hypothesis is nest
> defense. Mammals can run away with their baby inside. Dinosaurs had to
> stay (presumably) and protect a single location for up to 3 months. This
> necessitates armed combat.
Multi month stays? How many species do we know that we can say this about?
Would not large species, especially a large group, strip the area of food?
Would lay-and-forget be more perdominant?
> > [...]
> But dinosaurs were not operating as a _team_. And one could say that
> dinos just above mammals size only possessed BBs, too. Why didn't mammals
> move into that niche? I think the answer is in the dinosaur vs. mammalian
> life history/body plan.
As a team no but as a herd perhaps.