Re: Cretaceous taeniodont

[Michael Habib <mbh3q@virginia.edu>]

>> Oh, I think dinosaurs would still be dominant (one could argue they are!) if
> not for mammals.  I believe mammals and birds, today restrict the size and
> niche breadth of all large egg-laying species.  Did they have an effect at
> the K/T?  We'll see.  Was their size increase (if shown) an indicator of
> dinosaur decline?  I don't know.  But, yes.  This is what I am arguing.
> 
>> In other words,
> John is implying that mammals started getting bigger because the predatory
> pressure from non-avian theropods was slackening off for some reason in the
> Cretaceous.
> 
> Couldn't have said it better.


Quick question:  You mention mammalian pressure on egg-layers, as well as
mammalian size increase as an indicator of dinosaur decline.  Are you
proposing the mammalian size increase as a response to dinosaur faunal
changes, or a cause of those faunal turnover events? (you may have mentioned
this already, and I apologize if you have)

--Mike Habib (who is back to writing on the DML after four weeks of
insanity)