Re: mammal mystery

["Michael D. Miller" <millerm@thunder.indstate.edu>]

On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, Larry wrote:

> kmh wrote:
> > 
> > Okay, I got email from a kidlet asking why prehistoric mammals were so
> > small when so many dinosaurs were gigantic.  I'm assuming we can stick
> > to Mesozoic mammals like Haramiya and Alphadon on this one.  But
> > frankly, I don't have a clue why mammals remained relatively small in
> > comparison to dinosaurs.  Do you?  Any suggestions as to how I should
> > answer young lad?
> > 
> > kel
> 
> If you're talking about Mesozoic mammals (and I assume you are), the 
> answer is in the question: mammals were so small because dinosaurs were 
> so large.  Conditions were perfect for the dinosaurs, and they thrived (a 
> sure sign of thriving is increase in size), marginalizing the mammals 
> into small nocturnal critters for whom tinyness meant a chance to sccot 
> away from any small therapod which would waste it's time trying to eat 
> your sorry warm little hiney.  At the end of the mesozoic, with the 
> Dinosaurs gone, mammals came into their own.
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Larry
> 
Weren't the largest mammals about the size of a cat?  I'm not 100% sure, 
it's been a while since I've seen this.