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

Re: Mesozoic biomass

--- Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote:
> I'd say that biomass and megafauna size are rather far apart,
> conceptually.
     Indeed. Having just been getting wiggly line data from another
Nojabrskian (city in Siberia), I'm inevitably reminded that not very
long ago, most of Siberia was a mostly-frozen plain of low biological
productivity, poor soils and mammoth-sized megafauna. It's *still*
much the same (unless it's changed in the last 11 months <G>), but
the maximal size of the present fauna is deer, around 100kg. Unless
there was something lurking in the peat bogs other than horse flies
that could keep pace with an SUV at 40 km/hr.
    And of course, those peat bogs reflect back on someone else's
point about the "average" fossil, by number or tonnage, being a spore
or something equally impressive. After all, why do we get
palynologists out working on the rigs in real time, but not
vertebrate palaeontologists?

Aidan Karley,

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com