Guest Nicholas Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Dinosaurs known as sauropods—the largest land animals that ever lived—grew huge and were an evolutionary success in part because they didn't bother to chew their food, new research suggests. Find the article HERE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 A fascinating hypothesis: K-adapted, warm-blooded giants. This strategy has no parallel in the modern world. I like it! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFossilHunter Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I think is article was writte by someone who doesn't understand what she is talking about. First of all, an obvious oversight in the beginning: Sauropods weighed up to 88 tons (80 metric tons)—ten times more than an African elephant—and measured as high as 23 feet (7 meters) Some sauropods grew much higher than 7 meters; at least as high as 13 meters. also african elephant doesnt weigh as much as 8 tons...maybe 5-6 Scientists think the animals evolved to be so large to discourage big predators, like Tyrannosaurus rex, from eating them. is she out of her mind? T-Rex live at the very end of cretaceous, when sauropods were basically gone. if she is talking in general terms, then this is a crappy example The herbivores, or plant-eaters, had hardly any teeth and are thought to have swallowed their food whole—an entire bush in one gulp, for example. They browsed large areas, barely moving and consuming vast quantities in short periods of time. This is not true. Sauropods had teeth and they were designed for stripping vegetation. Also they couldnt have consumed large quantities of food in a short time. Most likely they spend a lot of time feeding "You can only have this long neck if you don't chew your food, otherwise your head would be full of teeth and too heavy to support," he said. ?? so you can support the many foot long neck but you cant support some additional teeth weight in it? Does having teeth make such a huge difference to warrant the reduction of teeth? I understand this question is controvercial but their logic is just not very convincing. You still need teeth to strip the leaves even if you dont chew. The design of their jaw didnt suggest chewing motion and that has alsmost nothing to do with whether they had teeth or not Sauropod bones show that they did indeed grow swiftly. A 22-pound (10-kilogram) hatchling could become a 220,000-pound (100,000-kilogram) grown-up in about 20 to 30 years—quick by dinosaur time. "This tells us that they must have been warm-blooded and had a high metabolic rate compared to cold-blooded creatures," said the University of Bonn's Sander. The growth rate or how big you can grow is not directly conected with being warm blooded or cold bloded. (the correct terms here would be endotherms and ectotherms). There are lots of problems with assuming that sauropods could have been endotherms including increased energy consumption, limit to size of certain organs, changing blood pressure, and other . Like all dinosaurs, sauropods laid nestfuls of eggs. By producing so many young at a time, "a population could recover quickly, even after a big catastrophe," Sander said. First of all it is not known if ALL dinosaurs layed eggs. Eggs from only a modest number of species have been found. Second of all, i seriously suspect that reproduction activity was a big burden for sauropods and not a pleasure cruise implied by the tone of the text I wonder if the lady who wrote it knows anything about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bmorefossil Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 very cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bone digger Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I agree with fossil hunter, pretty crappy article with alot of assumptions and not much science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I agree with fossil hunter, pretty crappy article with alot of assumptions and not much science! With articles from the popular press, I put on my "reporter goggles" and try to pick out the gist while ignoring the reporters inconsistancies. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nicholas Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 With articles from the popular press, I put on my "reporter goggles" and try to pick out the gist while ignoring the reporters inconsistancies. As do I, and well said. To me Nat Geo, is so obsessed with putting out stories that no one reads over what the article writers are actually talking about. TheFossilHunter made some very good points, which are shattering to the researchers credibility. Hopefully this will be a revised article, because I do like the content and a fan of Sauropods. I've heard and read some articles with counter claims, that these beasts too many years to accumulate this sort of mass. Thus why they were considered the longest living of the dinosaurs... claims made to be 100 to 200 years.. some claiming more..(seems steep to me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFossilHunter Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Yes it's entirely possible that they lived long to acquire their huge mass, and it's also true that their babies gained weight very very fast. they must have had to consume their own weight in food every day for the first few days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now