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

Re: why larger?

To: lonid@netone.com
Subject: Re: why larger?
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:31:55 -0500 (EST)
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu, Dinogeorge@aol.com
Reply-to: Dinogeorge@aol.com
Sender: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu

In a message dated 97-02-17 11:43:50 EST, lonid@netone.com (kmh) writes:

<< Okay, I follow the logic up until this point.  Byt WHY would they be
 replaced by LARGER decendants of their smaller relations?  Why "larger?" >>

Because it was their larger relatives that were eliminated in the
hypothesized extinction event. The niches occupied by the larger animals
would be left vacant and eminently fillable by larger descendants of the
smaller relations, if such were to evolve.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: why larger?
  - From: Larry <dunn1@idt.net>

Prev by Date: Size and Extinction
Next by Date: THE LOST WORLD
Previous by thread: Re: why larger?
Next by thread: Re: why larger?
Indexes: