[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: sauropods: homotherm,heterotherm or gigantotherm?
Irony notwithstanding, no taxomomic revolution necessary (even if we
don't consider that carnivorous/herbivorous is an
ecological/ethological classification, not a taxonomic one - the
reasons by we still put panda among carnivorous mammals, even though
it feeds basically upon bamboo leaves and sprouts). Or we'll have to
call sauropodomorphs and ornithischians (maybe therizinosaurs,
incisivosaurs and others) as parasitic and/or predatory dinosarus too
- since they prey upon others organisms (plants).
2005/9/16, Aidan Karley <email@example.com>:
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Roberto Takata
> > In the water we have huge ectotherms like whale-shark...
> > On the other hand, mammals carnivores never gotten so big - the
> > biggest is the killer whale with more or less 5 tonnes.
> So ... by deduction, blue whales are vegetarians and krill are
> plants not crustaceans ? Hmmm, major re-organisation of taxonomy there
> which some people would find rather controversial. As plants, are krill
> more closely related to the fungi than other plants, and do any other
> plants have comparable mobility and speed of environmental reaction?