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

Re: Dinosaurs vs. mammals: a hypothetical scenario



About mammals eating dinosaur eggs, two words: *Repenomamus giganticus*.

Two more: *Estesia mongoliensis*, also known as "putting the 'monster' in 'Gila monster'".

 Sauropods and ankylosaurians are not going to do well in any
 environment where trees lose their leaves for the winter *and* it's
 cold during winter.

Of course, the Miocene was warm.

 In the reverse, however, the "inhale and ferment" strategy of
 sauropods and ankylosaurians might prove better at bypassing the high
 silica content of grass than the erodible dental batteries of
 hadrosaurs and ceratopsians.

Phytoliths are not, in fact, harder than enamel. It's not about grass, it's about ground-level feeding and sand in the food; sand _is_ harder than enamel.

 Ornithomimids might be one of the few smaller-dinosaur clades
 inherently fast enough to thrive in a Miocene "global savanna"
 situation.

There was no global savanna. Roughly, today's steppes/prairies were savannas; today's savannas were rainforest.

 Smaller ornithischians (most hypsiloids, pachycephalosaurs, etc) are
 going to have a rough time. Compared to the various horses and
 ruminants dominating the planet, they're slow during escapes
 (quadrupeds > bipeds in speed at a given size, usually, especially
 when we're talking cursorial vs non-cursoiral),

You might be confusing speed and endurance here.

And for both, the caudifemoralis muscle may be a lot more important than most people used to think.