[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Copeing with mammals
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bois" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "MICHAEL HABIB" <email@example.com>
Cc: "David Marjanovic" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "DML" <email@example.com>
< Thanks, I don't need Ccs, I read everything I get from the list...
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 9:27 PM
There are selective forces/advantages for both being big and being small.
And both have effect in most habitats, I would think. The question is why
any clade--or population--abandons its ecospace? This is like people just
handing over their property...it generally doesn't happen.
I don't like this comparison. It sounds so much like conscious decisions...
> Just for a conceptual example, it is perfectly reasonable to think that
> clade might drift towards larger size because of INTRAspecific
> competition (which is being strangely ignored in this thread, I think),
> namely that large individuals do better than small individuals within a
> species for some length of time.
And as bigger members move out of the small niche, this provides
opportunity for smaller members in the small niche.
This works only if a large part of the original species quits the
intraspecific competition at once and founds it own species. If just a few
lone members do that, the risk is high that they simply won't get mates.
...most massextinctions seem to be near in time with abiotic pertubations.
I have just read a paper that claims mass extinctions grade into
Don't the bigger ones of those coincide with abiotic perturbations, too...?
OK, OK, there are certainly next to no data on this.