[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fw: late night thoughts: misunderstand what?
I think we are assuming different margins of error. My assumptions are
quite large. It boils down to the probability of a given individual
organism being both preserved and found, something that varies according
to lifestyle and environment. I think that combined probability for
terrestrial vertebrates is very, very, very low. Finding one individual in
a given location indicates a long presence on the planet and says little
about real geographical distribution.
Are you saying your hypothesis is not testable?
I hope you aren't.
Our perspective on evolution is evidently very different. I don't think
that the end theropod being the biggest, and the end sauropod being the
most armored, and quite large, does anything to falsify the notion of a
prey/predator size race.
But that's not the case. Armor has AFAIK not been found on anything bigger
than *Isisaurus*, which was bigger than *Opisthocoelicaudia*,
*Nemegtosaurus*, *Quaesitosaurus*, and at least most of *Alamosaurus*.
Furthermore, it lived in India in the absence of any known extra-large
theropods, and it's rather average for Jurassic sauropod measures.
*Puertasaurus* is huge, but again lacks known extra-large theropods in its
And then there's, again, the fact that neither minimum nor maximum nor
average sauropod (or even sauropodomorph) size increased across the
Mesozoic. Your hypothesis says they did grow bigger, the fossil record says
they didn't, your hypothesis loses. Am I missing something?
From what you (and others) say, that was the situation. That T.rex evolved
separately from the allosaurids seems indicative to me that the
evolutionary sub-strate was conducive to creating mega-predators.
Interesting, then, that there's no or almost no size increase in allosaurids
from the Late Jurassic (*Saurophaganax*) to the beginning of the Late
Cretaceous (*Carcharodontosaurus*, *Giganotosaurus*); and AFAIK the one or
two later known allosaurids were smaller again.
Why would I conclude that sauropods weren't a part of that?
Because they exhibit a complete lack of any trend towards increasing body
Where's the beef?
The slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.