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

Re: taxonomy is not stratigraphy (was Re: JVP 25(2): New Dinos, Birds, Discoveries)



On 7/15/05, Denver Fowler <df9465@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> --- Tim Donovan <uwrk2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Giganotosaurus and Argentinosaurus,
> > Carcharodontosaurus and Paralititan,
> > Torvosaurus/Epanterias and Brachiosaurus etc.
> > Starkov
> > mentioned other examples.
> 
> This is true. But it is a misleading statement.
> Sauropods are ubiquitous across the globe all through
> mesozoic time except (arguably) for North America
> between the cenomanian and early maastrichtian (yes
> yes, possibly a little earlier even depending on the
> AZ and De-na-Zin material). Sauropods invariably
> include the largest-bodied constituents of their
> faunas. Hence, wherever you get large theropods, there
> will be large sauropods, except in N. Am as stated
> above.

Might it be that the environments these giant theropod/sauropod pairs
lived in were simply lush environments capable of supporting larger
animals? Or that these deposits are simply better for preserving giant
animals? (Or both?)

Just playing devil's advocate. The idea of "size races" is intuitively
appealing, but, given our small sample size, there may be other
explanations. (Or multiple--it seems to me that none of these are
mutually incompatible.)

--Mike Keesey