Re: Sauropods and those little heads

[Matt Fraser <mattf+@pitt.edu>]

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, Dictator-for-life Calvin wrote:

> 2.  Sauropods were bigger than elephants, and would have to eat a lot 
> more if they were endotherms.
> 
> 3.  Sauropods couldn't have consumed enough plant material in a day to 
> support an endothermic metabolism.
> 
> But as you point out, point 1. should read, "Elephants spend a lot of 
> time eating and a lot of time chewing."  I don't know if sauropods 
> were endothermic or not, and given their size I'm not sure if it 
> makes much difference either way, but I never felt too comfy with the 
> elephant munching time argument.

Isn't it true that the reason that elephants can eat a lot of poor quality
food is precisely because they are large.  Their surface to volume ratio
is smaller, so they lose less heat. Samll mammals require high quality
foods in order to maintain their temperatures.  Their metabolic rates are
jazzed up accordingly.  Huge dinosaurs might not have had a choice as to
whether they were endotherms or not.  Small amount of metabolic energy may
have been sufficient to keep them hot blooded.  If the climate was warm,
they may have had to work to remain cool.  Perhaps this is why
extraordinarily long tails are associated with the largest (ever notice
how fingers, which have a an extremely high surface to volume ratio, get
colder faster than your torso?), and dare I say the necks as well?

Just a few thoughts,

Matt

  _________________________________________________________

Matt Fraser
mattf+@pitt.edu
Matt's Paleo Pages <http://www.pitt.edu/~mattf/PaleoPage.html>

                   Where you can find
 The Paleo Award, PaleoNews, PaleoChat, The Paleo Forum,
The PaleoAnthro Mailing Lists, and The Paleo Ring Webring!

  _________________________________________________________