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

Re: gigantism as liability

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:02:17AM -0700, Erik Boehm scripsit:
> I wouldn't be surprised if one were to take certain mammalian
> lineages, and somehow put them back in the triassic, that those
> lineages would evolve towards gigantism.

Doesn't follow.

Sauropods laid a *lot* of eggs.  They were R strategists; if, on
average, two eggs survive to successfully reproduce out of all those
laid in a lifetime, that's enough.

Postulate a 20 ton sauropod; 40 eggs twice a year for 50 years is 4,000

2 kg eggs x 4,000 is 8,000 kg.

A 20 tonne mammal mother will invest about a tonne of mass per
offspring.  Eight of them is the same reproductive investment by mass as
the sauropod; it would require 25% reproductive success rates to get the
same result, high but not implausibly so for something so huge.

Where it's not equivalent is energetically.  The advantage to gigantism
-- why all the really big land mammals are hind-gut fermenters -- is
that you can do well eating lots and lots of poor-quality fodder.  If
you have to gestate a 1 tonne mass-investement baby, you are probably
food-limited for something like three years; any drought, dearth, or
even late spring and you have a problem.

The sauropod does not have a problem that problem; it either skips a
clutch or delays it, and a single clutch is a 40 x 2kg = 80kg = 0.4%
mass investment, instead of about 5%.

Also, no care investment, no gut mass displacement, and no rate issue;
that three year lead time per single offspring plus the requirement for
care means that you need these big multi-year slices of decent
conditions to reproduce successfully.

So I strongly suspect that the 10 tons or so elephants get up to is the
long term limit for mammal just on reproductive issues.  Any larger, and
gestation takes too long; the time slice of good conditions doesn't
happen often enough.

-- Graydon