[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sauropod Survival
Entire message included because I bet the archive and lots of people only
got the "truncated" error:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Cantrell" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Sauropod Survival
David Marjanovic <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas R. Holtz, Jr."
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 4:39 PM
In any case, the terrestrial Tr/J extinction event is a weird one. It
seems as if many (if not all) the big non-dinosaurian
archosaurs and non-mammaliaform therapsids were actually extinct by the
Norian-Rhaetian boundary, and didn't make it to the Tr/J
itself. (NOTE: this remains a subject of some debate). So the Tr/J on
may not be as catastrophic as the P/Tr or the K/T.
How easy, actually, is it to _find_ the Norian-Rhaetian boundary outside
western/central European marine strata...?
Regardless, the existence of Triassic sauropods does suggest (as you
that large metabolically active creatures did survive the event.
_If_ we assume that the hatchlings were not cared for, which means they
didn't need their parents to survive, there could be an easy way around
this. However, this is hard to imagine -- an animal the length of a
keyboard plus mouse pad that cannot run caring for itself!
Joe Cantrell adds these to David Marjanovic's response:
Imagine an energy depleted environment where herbivore populations
are beginning to wane and predators are very hungry. The survival of baby
sauropods would be problematic in the absence of parental protection even
if they didn't rely on their parents for food, not that they could
effectively compete with natural low browsers for what was left.
_If_ the Tr-J boundary mass extinction was a global, sudden catastrophe like
the K-Pg one, _then_ very few "natural low browsers" and very few predators
were left, so all these effects could have canceled each other out. It goes
without saying that the Tr-J boundary is less well researched than the K-Pg
Your e-mail arrived here as plain text, but _without line breaks_ ( = the
lines break wherever the window ends). This means it's not _really_ plain
text. This in turn means listproc has found an "attachment" and replaced it
by the error message, and this means that some programs (other than Outlook
Express which I use) won't display the text.* In all cases I've checked when
I get "plain-text" mails without line breaks the archives just contain the
* Outlook Express doesn't display the error message instead. -- Weirder
combinations exist. The webmail program on the GMX website displays such
e-mails correctly -- _and_ claims the error message is an _attachment_, even
though it _doesn't_ do this with HTML mail that I get offlist!