[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
> coming from say, a flood plain away from the coast, would find
> 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.