Re: why larger?

[Larry <dunn1@idt.net>]

Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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.

His question, I believe, was rhetorical.  If smallness is such a virtue, 
why are those niches so "eminently fillable?"