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

Re: Resources, energetics and dinosaur maximal size

In my opinion, the "cost of chewing" is a little bit over-rated. Casual 
observation indicates that intake, chewing, and swallowing can occur more or 
less simultaneously in optimal conditions, at least in cows.

That said, an approximation of intake rate by non-chewing "hoovers" could be 
easily obtained from grazing horses or cows in optimal pasture conditions; they 
frequently engage in short bursts of nipping (2-3 nips/sec) that appear to be 
uninterrupted by any chewing or swallowing. Measuring nip frequency and volume 
in these intervals would give something approaching the upper bound attainable 
by a non-chewer w/ an equivalent head-size.

The tricky part would be modifying the rate to account for resource type; e.g., 
banana-style leaves or ferns would give somewhat different results than the 
currently extant bermuda grass.

My main point is, surely this has already been done? Anyone got a ref?

--- On Mon, 7/27/09, Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Resources, energetics and dinosaur maximal size
> To: "DML" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 12:06 PM
> --- On Mon, 7/27/09, David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
> wrote:
> > So he's trying to do science without math? (What do
> > "large", "may", "not completely", "unlikely",
> "appreciably
> > higher" and so on really mean?)
> > 
> > If so, I'm unfortunately still right, even though
> (thanks
> > for correcting me) for the wrong reasons.
> > 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Oh no. There is plenty of math in the paper (much more so
> than the "typical" paleo paper).
> I can send you a copy if you'd like.
> Jason