[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: gigantism as liability
Michael Habib writes:
> > The article's authors count gigantism as some sort of
> > achievement...one that mammals have been unable to attain. I
> > believe this perspective is flawed, biased (perhaps) by the
> > infernal anthropomorphic attitude that bigger is better.
> It depends on what sort of metric one uses - large size invokes
> special mechanical constraints, and thus represents a sort of
> biological "solution" to interesting problems. At the same time, I
> agree with your sentiment that "bigger is better" is a subjective
> tendency that probably clouds some analyses.
It may be subjective, but doesn't mean it's not true. Bigger is more
awesome, and therefore better. All right-thinking people will
immediately see the truth of this.
> P. Martin Sander & Marcus Clauss: Sauropod Gigantism. How did
> sauropod dinosaurs reach body sizes that remain unsurpassed in
> land-living animals?, Science 322, 200f. (10 October 2008)
I knew that a Sander-Clauss paper was on the way, but I thought it was
going to be on arctic reindeer populations.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Troodontids are almost certainly deinonychosaurs. I was wrong
about troodontids in 1994, but don't care" -- Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.