[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Mesothermy in dinosaurs, comments in Science
Ben Creisler
bcreisler@gmail.com
Comments on a recent study in Science. The full texts are currently in
open access on line:
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
M. D. D’Emic (2015)
Comment on “Evidence for mesothermy in dinosaurs”.
Science 348(6238): 982
DOI: 10.1126/science.1260061
Full text:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6238/982.2.full
ABSTRACT
Grady et al. (Reports, 13 June 2014, p. 1268) suggested that nonavian
dinosaur metabolism was neither endothermic nor ectothermic but an
intermediate physiology termed “mesothermic.” However, rates were
improperly scaled and phylogenetic, physiological, and temporal
categories of animals were conflated during analyses. Accounting for
these issues suggests that nonavian dinosaurs were on average as
endothermic as extant placental mammals.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6238/982.2.abstract
====
Nathan P. Myhrvold (2015)
Comment on “Evidence for mesothermy in dinosaurs”.
Science 348(6238): 982
DOI: 10.1126/science.1260410
Full text:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6238/982.3.full
ABSTRACT
Grady et al. (Reports, 13 June 2014, p. 1268) studied dinosaur
metabolism by comparison of maximum somatic growth rate allometry with
groups of known metabolism. They concluded that dinosaurs exhibited
mesothermy, a metabolic rate intermediate between endothermy and
ectothermy. Multiple statistical and methodological issues call into
question the evidence for dinosaur mesothermy.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6238/982.3.abstract
===
John M. Grady, Brian J. Enquist, Eva Dettweiler-Robinson, Natalie A.
Wright & Felisa A. Smith (2015)
Response to Comments on “Evidence for mesothermy in dinosaurs”.
Science 348(6238): 982
DOI: 10.1126/science.1260299
Full text:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6238/982.4.full
ABSTRACT
D’Emic and Myhrvold raise a number of statistical and methodological
issues with our recent analysis of dinosaur growth and energetics.
However, their critiques and suggested improvements lack biological
and statistical justification
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6238/982.4.abstract