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

Re: Resources, energetics and dinosaur maximal size

So Thunderbird does not automatically insert line breaks when quoting (the way Outlook Express does). I'll try doing it by hand... :-(

If the food intake of the largest herbivorous mammals defines the maximal rate 
> which plant resources can be consumed in terrestrial environments and if that limit
> applied to dinosaurs,

It doesn't. Sauropods didn't chew. Evidently McNab has never seen a sauropod mouth.

This, the third sentence in the abstract, is the point where the paper turns out to be a failure of peer-review. <sigh>

The maximal size of predatory theropods was approximately 8 tons, which if
> it reflected the maximal capacity to consume vertebrates in terrestrial
> environments, corresponds in predatory mammals to a maximal mass less than a ton,
> which is what is observed.

Greater resource availability or at least concentration (huge potential prey, all of which were r-strategists!), lack of chewing (never mind the intramandibular joint), serrated teeth.

Serrated teeth make a lot of difference, it seems to me. A pack of wolves killing a bison, as seen on TV, takes several hours. It involves the wolves biting into the place with the thinnest skin and trying to tear it into stripes, on the living animal, with their canines which are circular in cross-section (and with all their body weight). These pathetic attempts go on till the bison is weakened enough to fall to the ground... A murder of coelophysids, chirping annoyingly like in WWD, would have turned the same bison into a noodle sieve within minutes by _just taking bites out of it_. I think splatter does matter.