[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: *Mauisaurus* vs large pterosaurs
--- On Wed, 10/7/09, Augusto Haro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Whatever the reason for Cope's Rule (and if it generally
> holds true),
> may it not be that the latest members of both lineages,
> extinguished at the same time, where the largest because of
> Rule and not because of some coevolutionary linkage?
Definitely possible, in my view. However, I do not consider a reflexive 'Cope's
Rule' to be 'best-fit' any case, in the absence of specific size-drivers such
as temperature or prey-predator interaction.
1) "If size is an advantage, then size will increase until further size
increase ceases to be advantageous."
2) "Things just get bigger."
I consider statement #1 to be useful and valid, but not #2. For many years, I
thought statement #1 _was_ Cope's Rule, and couldn't understand the
controversy. Then I found that #2 is a paraphrase of Cope's notorious
> all, in the
> latest Cretaceous you also have the largest of other
> clades, such as
> tyrannosaurids and ceratopsians (whose evolution may in
> principle seem
> as possibly also coevolutionarily correlated).
If theropods drove size in pterosaurs, then the speculation that pterosaurs
drove size in elasmosaurs links them all. Speculatively, of course. Complete w/