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

Re: T.Rex Feather Skepticism



This goes back a few thoughts.

Didn't know that but are the zooplankton strictly the predatory pressure on the phytoplankton? I doubt it and at such a base trophic level even the zooplankton are predated upon by others so really they are prey too. I was looking more for a terrestrial analogue of predator biomass exceeding prey biomass in a surviving viable community. Whether or not this trophic structure could succeed in "higher" animals is in doubt in my mind. Certainly the numbers of predatory dinosaurs were far less than their herbivore counterparts. The biomass of triceratops in my Hell Creek collections if properly reflected by teeth survivorship had to be huge were there are many fewer predator teeth to find. I still believe that any viable ecosystem of animals larger than peas that there has to be a larger biomass of prey than predator.
Frank (Rooster) Bliss
MS Biostratigraphy
Weston, Wyoming


On Sep 15, 2005, at 2:53 PM, David Marjanovic wrote:

Are there actual examples of this or is it a theoretical exercise?

In some marine ecosystems there is more zooplankton than phytoplankton.

The prey will always out biomass the predator. There are always diminishing returns up the trophic web. That is why the movie "Raptor Island" was so bad...an island covered in veloceraptors with no prey animals. Canabalism would rule the roost and the population would diminish rapidly.
Frank (Rooster) Bliss
MS Biostratigraphy
Weston, Wyoming



Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:05:33 -0700
From: "T. Michael Keesey" <keesey@gmail.com>

Sure, a full-grown _T. rex_ is very large; but they aren't that
numerous.  Think of it this way: if you piled up the fur of all the
grizzly bears in North America in one pile and the fur of all the
rabbits in North America in another pile, which pile would be
bigger?