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

Re: sauropod lung collapse




...it seems unlikely that a 
> sauropod 
> coming from say, a flood plain away from the coast, would find 
> bodies 
> of water 80 feet deep all over the place.
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> ??? Why is deep water necessary?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++

Ah, I think I've misled you slightly as to my point.  I was commenting on why 
the snorkling hypothesis is untenable, I was not implying that sauropods were 
completely hydrophobic and/or could not swim.  The original (early 1900's?  
late 1800's?) snorkling hypothesis held that the animals sat on the bottom of a 
pool with the head just breaking the surface.  This requires deep water.  If 
you're asking whether a sauropod might wade into 4 meters of water and find 
something quick to munch, then you are proposing a much more reasonable 
situation that does not require a 'snorkle' in the first place.  In fact, if 
the animals are just wading (or even swimming on the surface) lung collapse is 
no longer an issue.  Surface swimming would inhibit breathing a bit because 
sauropods are just so big and the lungs are therefore still several meters 
underwater.  That is a far cry from being dozens of meters (or more) under the 
surface, however.  So yes, I would agree they could swim.  Heck, a
lmost every terrestrial animal can swim.  No reason not to ford a 
river...sitting on the bottom is just not a feasible option.

--Mike Habib